Easy Read Health Information for People With Intellectual Disabilities: A Systematic Review of the Evidence

IF 2.2 3区医学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL

Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities Pub Date : 2026-02-11 DOI:10.1111/jar.70195

Hollyanna Wilson, Karen Irvine, Regi T. Alexander, Silvana E. Mengoni

{"title":"Easy Read Health Information for People With Intellectual Disabilities: A Systematic Review of the Evidence","authors":"Hollyanna Wilson, Karen Irvine, Regi T. Alexander, Silvana E. Mengoni","doi":"10.1111/jar.70195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Easy Read materials are sometimes provided by healthcare services to help people with intellectual disabilities to understand written information. This study examined literature on the development, review, regulation, delivery, and impact of Easy Read health information (ERHI) with the aim of elucidating best practice.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A systematic review of five bibliographic databases and three grey literature databases was registered, conducted, and synthesised using meta-aggregation. Studies from 2006 onward regarding ERHI for individuals with intellectual disabilities were included.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The twenty-nine included studies revealed variability in ERHI development, review, and quality control processes. Individuals with intellectual disabilities valued ERHI and assistance in appraising it, however empirical evidence of ERHI effectiveness was limited.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>ERHI's empirical evidence base is underdeveloped and largely consists of low-quality research. Subjective and inconsistent application of guidance leads to variable ERHI quality. Standardised resources and rigorous research are needed to evaluate ERHI as a health education intervention.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51403,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12893875/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jar.70195","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Easy Read materials are sometimes provided by healthcare services to help people with intellectual disabilities to understand written information. This study examined literature on the development, review, regulation, delivery, and impact of Easy Read health information (ERHI) with the aim of elucidating best practice.

Methods

A systematic review of five bibliographic databases and three grey literature databases was registered, conducted, and synthesised using meta-aggregation. Studies from 2006 onward regarding ERHI for individuals with intellectual disabilities were included.

Results

The twenty-nine included studies revealed variability in ERHI development, review, and quality control processes. Individuals with intellectual disabilities valued ERHI and assistance in appraising it, however empirical evidence of ERHI effectiveness was limited.

Conclusions

ERHI's empirical evidence base is underdeveloped and largely consists of low-quality research. Subjective and inconsistent application of guidance leads to variable ERHI quality. Standardised resources and rigorous research are needed to evaluate ERHI as a health education intervention.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

智障人士易读健康信息：证据的系统回顾。

背景：医疗服务机构有时会提供易读材料，帮助智障人士理解书面信息。本研究考察了易读健康信息（ERHI）的发展、审查、监管、交付和影响方面的文献，目的是阐明最佳实践。方法：对5个书目数据库和3个灰色文献数据库进行系统评价，并采用meta-aggregation方法进行综合。自2006年起，有关智障人士ERHI的研究也被纳入其中。结果：29项纳入的研究揭示了ERHI的发展、审查和质量控制过程的可变性。智障人士重视智障教育，并在评估智障教育时提供协助，但有关智障教育有效性的经验证据有限。结论：二十国集团实证基础不完善，研究质量不高。主观和不一致的指导导致了ERHI质量的变化。需要标准化的资源和严谨的研究来评估ERHI作为一种健康教育干预措施。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities Multiple-

CiteScore

4.70

自引率

12.50%

发文量

期刊介绍： JARID is an international, peer-reviewed journal which draws together findings derived from original applied research in intellectual disabilities. The journal is an important forum for the dissemination of ideas to promote valued lifestyles for people with intellectual disabilities. It reports on research from the UK and overseas by authors from all relevant professional disciplines. It is aimed at an international, multi-disciplinary readership. Topics covered include community living, quality of life, challenging behaviour, communication, sexuality, medication, ageing, supported employment, family issues, mental health, physical health, autism, economic issues, social networks, staff stress, staff training, epidemiology and service provision.