Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39707098›Full record

Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2025

The Readability Study: A Randomised Trial of Health Information Written at Different Grade Reading Levels.

Olivia Mac, Julie Ayre, Kirsten McCaffery, Farzaneh Boroumand, Katy Bell, Danielle M Muscat

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Can LLMs simplify operative notes? A comparative analysis in otorhinolaryngology.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Olivia MacSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. olivia.mac@sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-6760-4779
Julie AyreSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Kirsten McCafferySydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Farzaneh BoroumandSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Katy BellSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Danielle M MuscatSydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite increasing attention on health literacy and the inclusion of grade reading level recommendations in guidelines, it remains unclear if lowering the grade reading level of written health information to specific target grades improves patient-related outcomes.

objectiveTo assess whether grade reading level of written information affects knowledge, perceived reading ease, acceptability and trustworthiness of information and, to explore whether information written at a lower grade reading level reduces disparities in outcomes across health literacy levels.

designWe conducted a 4-arm online randomized trial with a community sample of adults living in Australia from 31 July to 20 September 2023. EXPERIMENTAL ARMS: Participants were randomised to one of four arms: Information about sciatica and knee osteoarthritis written at a grade 8, 10, 12 or 14 reading level. Readability was assessed using the SMOG Index and iteratively revised to each lower grade. MEASURES: Primary outcome was knowledge of health conditions. Secondary outcomes were brief knowledge, perceived reading ease, acceptability (i.e., perceived usefulness and likelihood to recommend) and trustworthiness of information.

results2235 participants were randomised and included in the analysis. Mean age was 41 years and 54.5% identified as female. Low health literacy was identified in 28.2% of participants. We found no evidence of a main effect of grade reading level on knowledge (grade 8: 9.0 (SD = 2.7), grade 10: 9.1 (SD = 2.6), grade 12: 8.9, grade 14: 9.1 (SD = 2.7). Participants with high health literacy had higher knowledge scores overall, however, there was no evidence that health literacy modified the effect of grade reading level. There were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes.

conclusionsOur study showed no difference in knowledge when grade reading level was manipulated alone. Our findings indicate there is limited value in reducing grade reading level without attention to other health literacy principles. ANZCTR TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: ACTRN12623000224628p.

Indexed as

ComprehensionHealth LiteracyPatient Education as TopicReadingWritingAdultAustraliaFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaleMiddle Agedhealth communicationhealth literacyreadability

Identifiers

PMID39707098
PMCPMC12119439

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.