ArticleIrish journal of medical science2026
A quantitative analysis of the readability of breast health patient information resources in Ireland.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccessible written information is fundamental to patient-centred care and informed decision-making, yet health materials frequently exceed the reading ability of their intended audiences. In breast health - where patient information leaflets are widely used to support screening, diagnosis and treatment decisions - readability assessments offer an objective measure of accessibility.
aimsTo evaluate the readability of breast health patient information leaflets (PILs) produced by two major Irish health information providers - the Health Service Executive (HSE) and the Irish Cancer Society (ICS) - and to assess their compliance with national literacy recommendations.
methodsA cross-sectional readability analysis was conducted on 27 publicly available breast health PILs (13 HSE; 14 ICS). Text was extracted and assessed using five validated readability indices: Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Coleman-Liau Index (CLI). Median readability scores and interquartile ranges were calculated, and differences between providers were analysed using Mann-Whitney U tests.
resultsAcross all indices, both organisations' materials exceeded the recommended grade 7 readability threshold. ICS materials were significantly more difficult to read than HSE materials (p < 0.001). Median grade-level scores ranged from 7.1 (FKGL) to 9.0 (GFI) for HSE and 8.15 (FKGL) to 10.35 (GFI) for ICS. No significant differences were observed across topic categories.
conclusionMost breast health PILs in Ireland exceed recommended readability levels, limiting accessibility for many patients. Routine readability assessment and plain-language revision are warranted to promote equitable, patient-centred communication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42364065What 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.