Trial reportJAMA network open2024
Online Plain Language Tool and Health Information Quality: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Building health-literate artificial intelligence.Nature human behaviour · 2026Review
- Prioritizing Equity in Design and Implementation of Consumer-Facing Digital Resources to Support Engagement and Shared Decision-Making.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Ethical Considerations in Personal Health Large Language Models.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluation of teach-back and plain language acceptability during patient interactions.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- Health in translation: a workshop model for health literacy and lay science communication.Advances in physiology education · 2026Article
- Development of a question prompt list to support Consent for Genomic Testing (CoGenT) and research.Human genetics · 2026Article
- Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Myopia Management.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Communicative Justice in Later Life: A Critical Discourse Study and Bioethics-of-Vulnerability Analysis of Older Adults' Primary Care in Spain.Nursing inquiry · 2026Article
- Setting up a multilingual & inclusive survey.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Health literacy and digital health service use among community residents in Taiwan: implications from a pilot assessment using the HLS-SF12.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Hypertension management profiles in Chinese adults aged 60 years and older.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
- Internet Dietary Guidance for Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Quality and Readability Crisis.Cureus · 2026Article
- Improving the health of people with intellectual disability: past progress and future directions.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- PatientEase-Domain-Aware RAG for Rehabilitation Instruction Simplification.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Appropriateness of Web-Based Resources for Home Blood Pressure Measurement and Their Alignment With Guideline Recommendations, Readability, and End User Involvement: Environmental Scan of Web-Based Resources.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Assessment of Informed Consent Practices in Surgical Procedures at a Tertiary Care Hospital of Northeast India: A Cross-Sectional Study.Nigerian medical journal : journal of the Nigeria Medical AssociationReview
- Readability of COVID-19 health science information on the official websites of 27 Provincial Health Commissions in China.Digital 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Complex and ineffective health communication is a critical source of health inequity and occurs despite repeated policy directives to provide health information that is easy to understand and applies health literacy principles. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of the Sydney Health Literacy Lab Health Literacy Editor, an easy-to-use online plain language tool that supports health information providers to apply health literacy guidelines to written health information. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial, conducted online in Australia from May 2023 to February 2024, included a convenience sample of health information providers with no previous experience using the Health Literacy Editor. Analysts were blinded to study group. Intervention: Participants were randomized 1:1 to the intervention or control group. Participants in the intervention group were provided access to the Health Literacy Editor and a 30-minute online training program prior to editing 3 prespecified health texts. The Health Literacy Editor gives objective, real-time feedback on words and sentences. Control participants revised the texts using their own standard health information development processes. Main Outcomes and Measures: The preregistered primary outcome was the text school grade reading score (using a validated instrument, the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook). Secondary outcomes were text complexity (percentage of text using complex language), use of passive voice (number of instances), and subjective expert ratings (5-point Likert scale corresponding to items on the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool). Results: A total of 211 participants were randomized, with 105 in the intervention group and 106 in the control group. Of 181 participants in the intention-to-treat analysis (mean [SD] age, 41.0 [11.6] years; 154 women [85.1%]), 86 were in the intervention group and 95 in the control group. Texts revised in the intervention group had significantly improved grade reading scores (mean difference [MD], 2.48 grades; 95% CI, 1.84-3.12 grades; P < .001; Cohen d, 0.99), lower text complexity scores (MD, 6.86; 95% CI, 4.99-8.74; P < .001; Cohen d, 0.95), and less use of passive voice (MD, 0.95 instances; 95% CI, 0.44-1.47 instances; P < .001; Cohen d, 0.53) compared with texts revised in the control group in intention-to-treat analyses. Experts rated texts in the intervention group more favorably for word choice and style than those in the control group (MD, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.25-0.63; P < .001; Cohen d, 0.63), with no loss of meaning or content. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, the Health Literacy Editor helped users simplify health information and apply health literacy guidelines to written text. The findings suggest the tool has high potential to improve development of health information for people who have low health literacy. As an online tool, the Health Literacy Editor is also easy to access and implement at scale. Trial Registration: ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12623000386639.
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.