ArticleJournal of communication in healthcare2026
A health literate evaluation of a reproductive health education program for young men with sickle cell disease.
Article in Journal of communication in healthcare, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundHealth literacy (HL) is known to be low among those with sickle cell disease (SCD). Reproductive health knowledge gaps exist among those with SCD, which drove the research team to create an education tool for adolescent males entitled, 'Fertility edUcaTion to Understand ReproductivE health in Sickle cell disease' (FUTURES) in 2023. This study sought to evaluate and revise FUTURES using HL tools and a community-advised review to improve clarity, understandability, actionability, and relatability.
methodsFour evaluators conducted a HL assessment of the original and revised FUTURES programs using the Patient Education Assessment Tool for Audio/Visual Materials (PEMAT-AV) and the modified Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Clear Communication Index (CDC-CCI-modified). Paired samples t-tests were used to compare PEMAT-AV and CDC-CCI-modified scores between the original and revised versions of FUTURES. Community advisory board feedback identified opportunities to improve program design.
resultsHL assessment revealed high HL demand of the original FUTURES program. The revised program had significantly higher understandability and clarity scores and was re-designed to be more engaging and representative of the intended audience. However, the CDC-CCI-modified score fell below the recommended threshold and actionability remained unchanged.
conclusionsThis study outlined an approach that prioritized HL and community voices when revising an education tool, which could be used in future efforts to design accessible and relatable patient education materials for this population and others. More work is needed to evaluate the impact of the HL revision process on patient knowledge and outcomes for this and other at-risk patient populations.
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.