Tweet
PLoS ONE. How Accessible Was Information about H1N1 Flu? Literacy Assessments of CDC Guidance Documents for Different Audiences
[Source: PLoS ONE, full text: (LINK). Abstract, edited.]
How Accessible Was Information about H1N1 Flu? Literacy Assessments of CDC Guidance Documents for Different Audiences
Lisa P. Lagass?<SUP>1</SUP><SUP>*</SUP>, Rajiv N. Rimal<SUP>1</SUP>, Katherine C. Smith<SUP>1</SUP>, J. Douglas Storey<SUP>1</SUP>, Elizabeth Rhoades<SUP>1</SUP>, Daniel J. Barnett<SUP>2</SUP>, Saad B. Omer<SUP>3</SUP>, Jonathan Links<SUP>2</SUP>
1 Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America, 2 Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America, 3 Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America
Abstract
We assessed the literacy level and readability of online communications about H1N1/09 influenza issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during the first month of outbreak. Documents were classified as targeting one of six audiences ranging in technical expertise. Flesch-Kincaid (FK) measure assessed literacy level for each group of documents. ANOVA models tested for differences in FK scores across target audiences and over time. Readability was assessed for documents targeting non-technical audiences using the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM). Overall, there was a main-effect by audience, F(5, 82) = 29.72, P<.001, but FK scores did not vary over time, F(2, 82) = .34, P>.05. A time-by-audience interaction was significant, F(10, 82) = 2.11, P<.05. Documents targeting non-technical audiences were found to be text-heavy and densely-formatted. The vocabulary and writing style were found to adequately reflect audience needs. The reading level of CDC guidance documents about H1N1/09 influenza varied appropriately according to the intended audience; sub-optimal formatting and layout may have rendered some text difficult to comprehend.
Citation: Lagass? LP, Rimal RN, Smith KC, Storey JD, Rhoades E, et al. (2011) How Accessible Was Information about H1N1 Flu? Literacy Assessments of CDC Guidance Documents for Different Audiences. PLoS ONE 6(10): e23583. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023583
Editor: Eng Eong Ooi, Duke-National University of Singapore Graduate Medical School, Singapore
Received: December 6, 2010; Accepted: July 21, 2011; Published: October 25, 2011
Copyright: ? 2011 Lagass? et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This research is funded by the Johns Hopkins Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Center (PERRC) through the Centers for Disease Control grant no. P01TP000288. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
* E-mail: llagasse@jhsph.edu
- -------
Lisa P. Lagass?<SUP>1</SUP><SUP>*</SUP>, Rajiv N. Rimal<SUP>1</SUP>, Katherine C. Smith<SUP>1</SUP>, J. Douglas Storey<SUP>1</SUP>, Elizabeth Rhoades<SUP>1</SUP>, Daniel J. Barnett<SUP>2</SUP>, Saad B. Omer<SUP>3</SUP>, Jonathan Links<SUP>2</SUP>
1 Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America, 2 Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America, 3 Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America
Abstract
We assessed the literacy level and readability of online communications about H1N1/09 influenza issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during the first month of outbreak. Documents were classified as targeting one of six audiences ranging in technical expertise. Flesch-Kincaid (FK) measure assessed literacy level for each group of documents. ANOVA models tested for differences in FK scores across target audiences and over time. Readability was assessed for documents targeting non-technical audiences using the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM). Overall, there was a main-effect by audience, F(5, 82) = 29.72, P<.001, but FK scores did not vary over time, F(2, 82) = .34, P>.05. A time-by-audience interaction was significant, F(10, 82) = 2.11, P<.05. Documents targeting non-technical audiences were found to be text-heavy and densely-formatted. The vocabulary and writing style were found to adequately reflect audience needs. The reading level of CDC guidance documents about H1N1/09 influenza varied appropriately according to the intended audience; sub-optimal formatting and layout may have rendered some text difficult to comprehend.
Citation: Lagass? LP, Rimal RN, Smith KC, Storey JD, Rhoades E, et al. (2011) How Accessible Was Information about H1N1 Flu? Literacy Assessments of CDC Guidance Documents for Different Audiences. PLoS ONE 6(10): e23583. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023583
Editor: Eng Eong Ooi, Duke-National University of Singapore Graduate Medical School, Singapore
Received: December 6, 2010; Accepted: July 21, 2011; Published: October 25, 2011
Copyright: ? 2011 Lagass? et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This research is funded by the Johns Hopkins Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Center (PERRC) through the Centers for Disease Control grant no. P01TP000288. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
* E-mail: llagasse@jhsph.edu