Online citations, reference lists, and bibliographies.
← Back to Search

Limited Literacy Revisited Implications For Patient Education.

A. Foltz, J. Sullivan
Published 1999 · Medicine

Save to my Library
Download PDF
Analyze on Scholarcy
Share
PURPOSE It is important to determine whether teaching materials are understood and deemed accurate by the cancer patients being served. The authors used a series of patient participatory interviews to evaluate two brochures: Chemotherapy: What It Is and How It Helps by the American Cancer Society; and Helping Yourself During Chemotherapy: 4 Steps for Patients by the National Cancer Institute. The authors sought to determine whether 1) the brochures were clear; 2) differences in presentation were perceived by patients; and 3) differences influenced respondents' understanding and opinions of the brochures. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY A qualitative, focus-group methodology was used. Twelve cancer patients, eight of whom were women and six of whom were African American, were recruited from three outpatient clinics. Participants ranged in age from 31 to 62 years of age, and in education from completion of ninth grade to graduate school. Patients participated in a series of five groups, with a series of semistructured questions about content and format being asked of each group. All sessions were audiotaped. The investigators reviewed data both independently and together to identify content and format evaluations. RESULTS Findings showed that most participants were drawn first by the National Cancer Institute format; the American Cancer Society brochure was seen as having more information; the two brochures were seen as complementary; some confusion arose from the content of both brochures; and the discussions of emotional and sexual aspects were important. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS These findings support the need for simple, clearly written brochures rather than brochures of varying literacy levels. The confusion caused by differences in advice given by the two organizations indicates the need to address specific areas in which dissimilarities exist. Finally, the project demonstrates the utility of patient focus groups for evaluation of patient education material.
This paper references



This paper is referenced by
10.1101/490532
A Strategy Study on Risk Communication of Pandemic Influenza——A Mental Model Study of College Students in Beijing
H. Yang (2018)
10.1007/s00520-007-0240-0
Meeting information needs on cancer-related fatigue: an exploration of views held by Italian patients and nurses
M. Piredda (2007)
10.1108/14769018200500017
Commissioning Information for People with Learning Difficulties
J. Rodgers (2005)
10.5430/JNEP.V8N6P77
How are health literacy principles incorporated into breast cancer chemotherapy education? A review of the literature.
Pearman D. Parker (2018)
10.1590/S0034-89102003000400021
[Communication prostheses and behavioral alignment in hospital leaflets].
P. R. Vasconcellos-Silva (2003)
10.1177/1078155207082947
Comparison of chemotherapy education and patient preferences in community versus academic gynecology oncology clinicsa
K. Jones (2008)
The role of health literacy in patient-physician communication.
M. Williams (2002)
10.1111/J.1468-3156.2005.00341.X
Making information easier for people with learning disabilities
J. Rodgers (2005)
10.1300/J077v19n03_11
Communicating Cancer Control Messages to Low-Literate and Diverse Audiences
R. Conerly (2001)
10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.40153.x
Literacy and health outcomes
D. DeWalt (2007)
10.1177/0017896908097071
Literacy and health literacy as defined in cancer education research: A systematic review
D. Friedman (2008)
10.1007/s00520-003-0546-5
Evaluation of patient chemotherapy education in a gynecology oncology center
J. Smith (2003)
10.1111/JPPI.12201
The Evidence for Easy-Read for People With Intellectual Disabilities: A Systematic Literature Review
R. J. Sutherland (2016)
10.1016/S0749-2081(00)80007-8
Perspectives on cancer patient education.
J. Treacy (2000)
10.3322/canjclin.52.3.134
Health Literacy and Cancer Communication
T. Davis (2002)
10.1016/S0001-2092(06)61407-5
Optimize patient health by treating literacy and language barriers.
V. Dreger (2002)
Conducting focus group research in a design science project : Application in developing a process model for the front end of innovation
Patrick Brandtnera (2016)
10.1007/978-1-4614-3369-9_38
The Dialectics of the Production of Printed Educational Material for Cancer Patients: Developing Communication Prostheses
Paulo Roberto Vasconcellos-Silva (2013)
10.1007/s13187-010-0075-0
Beyond Reading Level: A Systematic Review of the Suitability of Cancer Education Print and Web-based Materials
Ramona K. C. Finnie (2010)
10.1016/J.PEC.2003.10.003
Suitability of prostate cancer education materials: applying a standardized assessment tool to currently available materials.
Debra Weintraub (2004)
10.1016/S1462-3889(03)00003-6
Quality and efficacy of educational materials on cancer-related fatigue: views of patients from two European countries.
E. Ream (2003)
‘Patient information provision and involvement of patients by stroke professionals: implications for the patient-provider relationship’
Fawaz Fram (2015)
10.17269/cjph.105.4883
Increasing public awareness of Ebola virus disease symptoms using a pictogram based poster
A. Walsh (2014)
10.2147/RMHP.S251733
A Strategy Study on Risk Communication of Pandemic Influenza: A Mental Model Study of College Students in Beijing
Honglin Yang (2020)
10.1007/s10900-008-9142-4
Preferences Among Immigrant Hispanic Women for Written Educational Materials Regarding Upper Respiratory Infections
E. Larson (2008)
10.1188/02.CJON.354-357
Using the intranet to deliver patient-education materials.
C. Sorrentino (2002)
Razão instrumental e comunicação em saúde
M. Saúde (2003)
10.1590/S0102-311X2003000600011
Comunicação instrumental, diretiva e afetiva em impressos hospitalares
P. R. Vasconcellos-Silva (2003)
10.1089/GTE.2007.0012
Development and pilot evaluation of novel genetic educational materials designed for an underserved patient population.
R. Lubitz (2007)
Skriftlig patientinformation till cancerpatienter
I. Niklasson (2002)
10.3109/17549507.2011.560396
Aphasia friendly written health information: Content and design characteristics
T. Rose (2011)
10.1146/ANNUREV.PUBLHEALTH.28.021406.144123
Risk communication for public health emergencies.
D. Glik (2007)
See more
Semantic Scholar Logo Some data provided by SemanticScholar