The Journal of the American Dental Association
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 131, No 7, 937-942.
© 2000 American Dental Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by ALEXANDER, R. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by ALEXANDER, R. E.
Related Collections
Right arrow Pharmacology

CLINICAL PRACTICE

JADA Continuing Education

READABILITY OF PUBLISHED DENTAL EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS



ROGER E. ALEXANDER, D.D.S.

Background. A growing number of adult Americans are functionally illiterate. These people often do not understand educational documents written by health care professionals, especially if English is the reader’s second language. This problem has received little attention in dentistry.

Methods. In this study, the author selected a sampling of 24 patient educational documents from several dental resources and reviewed them for readability, using a computer-based program that assigns a reading level of understanding on the basis of a standard formula known as the Flesch-Kincaid Formula. The author also conducted a subjective review of each document to identify seemingly unnecessary professional jargon and words that were unlikely to be understood by many readers.

Results. Reading levels varied from third to 23rd grade (according to the Flesch-Kincaid Formula), and 41.7 percent of the materials were written at greater than the recommended level for understanding by most patients (mean level: seventh to ninth grade). Many dental specialty publications were written at or near college levels. Many documents had multiple grammatical errors. Seventy-nine words in the reviewed documents were considered to be jargon or potentially obscure to many lay readers.

Conclusions. More attention needs to be focused on the preparation of written educational materials for dental patients, to make the documents more understandable to the average patient. Guidelines for acceptable writing are available in the medical, nursing and pharmaceutical literature.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Dent EducHome page
R. D. Jackson, L. L. Coan, E. Hughes, and G. J. Eckert
Introduction of Health Literacy into the Allied Dental Curriculum: First Steps and Plans for the Future
J Dent Educ., March 1, 2010; 74(3): 318 - 324.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JBJSHome page
S. Badarudeen and S. Sabharwal
Readability of Patient Education Materials from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America Web Sites
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., January 1, 2008; 90(1): 199 - 204.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright©1995-2000 American Dental Association (ADA).
Reproduction or republication strictly prohibited without prior written permission of ADA.