ArticleHealth services research and managerial epidemiology
Evaluation of Reading Level of Result Letters Sent to Patients from an Academic Primary Care Practice.
Article in Health services research and managerial epidemiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Comparative Assessment of Large Language Models in Congenital Hypothyroidism: Reliability, Quality and ReadabilityJournal of clinical research in pediatric endocrinology · 2026Article
- Comparing remote and in-person interpretation experiences for clinicians and Spanish-speaking patients with limited English proficiency: a mixed methods study.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- ChatGPT and Google Assistant as a Source of Patient Education for Patients With Amblyopia: Content Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Patient Time Spent With Professional Medical Interpreters and the Care Experiences of Patients With Limited English Proficiency.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In primary care, low health literacy, particularly reading ability, is associated with worse health outcomes. Most physicians do not receive feedback on the reading levels of written communication that they may provide to patients, including result letters. Objective: Our study compares the readability of result letters, written by resident versus attending physicians, to patients with positive or negative screens for reading ability, as determined by the single-item literacy screener (SILS). Methods: Result letters to 50 patients at high risk and 50 patients at low risk of low reading ability were randomly selected starting from January 1st, 2020 at Albany Medical Center. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) were used to compare the readability of resident versus attending result letters. Results: For all SILS levels, attending physicians wrote result letters at a lower grade level than resident physicians based on the FKGL, GFI, and SMOG indices. The FKGL, GFI, and SMOG readability scores of result letters written to patients with SILS 3-5 were also lower when written by attending physicians compared to resident physicians. Conclusions: Result letters written by attending physicians may be easier to read than result letters written by resident physicians, especially for patients with low reading ability. Future electronic health record (EHR) software should give physicians and providers feedback on the reading level of their written communication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.