ArticlePEC innovation2023
Helping patient educators meet health literacy needs: End-user testing and iterative development of an innovative health literacy editing tool.
Article in PEC innovation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- One-Page Patient Fact Sheets for Low Back Pain in Primary Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Online Plain Language Tool and Health Information Quality: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
- Applying adaptive research methods to explore health literacy in young people with intellectual disability.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- How Inclusive Are Patient Decision Aids for People with Limited Health Literacy? An Analysis of Understandability Criteria and the Communication about Options and Probabilities.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Article
- Improving health and the delivery of care using digital technologies: Special issue highlighting innovative approaches to incorporating digital technology into health care.PEC innovation · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The Sydney Health Literacy Lab (SHeLL) Editor is an online text-editing tool that provides real-time assessment and feedback on written health information (assesses grade reading score, complex language, passive voice). This study aimed to explore how the design could be further enhanced to help health information providers interpret and act on automated feedback. Methods: The prototype was iteratively refined across four rounds of user-testing with health services staff ( Results: Participants rated the Editor as having adequate usability (M = 82.8 out of 100, SD = 13.5). Most modifications sought to reduce information overload (e.g. simplifying instructions for new users) or make feedback motivating and actionable (e.g. using frequent incremental feedback to highlight changes to the text altered assessment scores). Conclusion: terative user-testing was critical to balancing academic values and the practical needs of the Editor's target users. The final version emphasises actionable real-time feedback and not just assessment. Innovation: The Editor is a new tool that will help health information providers apply health literacy principles to written text.
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.