干预措施的有效性和可接受性，以提高患者医疗保健材料的可读性：叙述系统回顾

IF 3.2 3区医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

Public Health Pub Date : 2025-09-12 DOI:10.1016/j.puhe.2025.105937

J. Dunnett, J. Holkham, A. Trebacz, C. Baldasera, C. Francis, L. Dawson, R. Swiers, F. Christie-de-Jong

{"title":"干预措施的有效性和可接受性，以提高患者医疗保健材料的可读性：叙述系统回顾","authors":"J. Dunnett, J. Holkham, A. Trebacz, C. Baldasera, C. Francis, L. Dawson, R. Swiers, F. Christie-de-Jong","doi":"10.1016/j.puhe.2025.105937","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Reading age is a key component of Health literacy (HL) yet many written healthcare materials in the UK exceed recommended reading levels, making them less accessible to much of the population. Creating barriers to understanding contributes to health inequalities. Simplifying the way information is written and terminology used could be a useful and low-cost approach to support HL, yet effectiveness of such interventions remains unclear. This study aims to systematically review evidence evaluating the effectiveness and acceptability of healthcare material readability interventions in high income countries.</div></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><div>Narrative systematic review.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Searches of CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, APA Psych Articles, and Psychology and Behavioral Science, databases from 2014 to 2024 were conducted. Articles title/abstract and full text were double screened. Eligible studies examined tailored or improved written healthcare materials across clinical specialities. Data extraction included study characteristics, and interventions’, impact on patient acceptability, comprehension and health outcomes. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used for critical appraisal.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Thirty studies were included, predominantly from the USA. The majority evaluated interventions using simplified language, structured formatting, or visual enhancements. Findings indicated that simplified content was associated with greater patient understanding and preference. However, evidence on behavioural adherence and direct health outcomes was mixed, with few studies demonstrating statistically significant improvements. Quality of included studies was generally low, with methodological and reporting limitations.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Readability interventions can enhance patient comprehension and acceptability, yet their long-term impact on health outcomes remains uncertain. Future research should assess sustained effects and explore routine implementation in healthcare settings to inform best practices.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49651,"journal":{"name":"Public Health","volume":"248 ","pages":"Article 105937"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness and acceptability of interventions to improve readability of patient healthcare materials: A narrative systematic review\",\"authors\":\"J. Dunnett, J. Holkham, A. Trebacz, C. Baldasera, C. Francis, L. Dawson, R. Swiers, F. Christie-de-Jong\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.puhe.2025.105937\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Reading age is a key component of Health literacy (HL) yet many written healthcare materials in the UK exceed recommended reading levels, making them less accessible to much of the population. Creating barriers to understanding contributes to health inequalities. Simplifying the way information is written and terminology used could be a useful and low-cost approach to support HL, yet effectiveness of such interventions remains unclear. This study aims to systematically review evidence evaluating the effectiveness and acceptability of healthcare material readability interventions in high income countries.</div></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><div>Narrative systematic review.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Searches of CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, APA Psych Articles, and Psychology and Behavioral Science, databases from 2014 to 2024 were conducted. Articles title/abstract and full text were double screened. Eligible studies examined tailored or improved written healthcare materials across clinical specialities. Data extraction included study characteristics, and interventions’, impact on patient acceptability, comprehension and health outcomes. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used for critical appraisal.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Thirty studies were included, predominantly from the USA. The majority evaluated interventions using simplified language, structured formatting, or visual enhancements. Findings indicated that simplified content was associated with greater patient understanding and preference. However, evidence on behavioural adherence and direct health outcomes was mixed, with few studies demonstrating statistically significant improvements. Quality of included studies was generally low, with methodological and reporting limitations.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Readability interventions can enhance patient comprehension and acceptability, yet their long-term impact on health outcomes remains uncertain. Future research should assess sustained effects and explore routine implementation in healthcare settings to inform best practices.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49651,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Health\",\"volume\":\"248 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105937\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003335062500383X\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003335062500383X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

目的阅读年龄是健康素养（HL）的一个关键组成部分，但许多书面医疗保健材料在英国超过推荐的阅读水平，使他们不太容易接触到大部分人口。为理解设置障碍会助长健康不平等。简化信息的书写方式和术语的使用可能是支持HL的一种有用且低成本的方法，但此类干预措施的有效性尚不清楚。本研究旨在系统地回顾高收入国家卫生保健材料可读性干预措施的有效性和可接受性的证据。研究设计：叙述性系统评价。方法检索2014 - 2024年CENTRAL、Embase、MEDLINE、CINAHL、ERIC、APA Psych Articles、Psychology and Behavioral Science数据库。文章的标题/摘要和全文进行了双重筛选。符合条件的研究检查了量身定制或改进的临床专业医疗保健书面材料。数据提取包括研究特征和干预措施对患者可接受性、理解性和健康结果的影响。采用混合方法评价工具（MMAT）进行关键评价。结果纳入30项研究，主要来自美国。大多数评估使用简化语言、结构化格式或视觉增强。研究结果表明，简化的内容与患者更好的理解和偏好有关。然而，关于行为依从性和直接健康结果的证据参差不齐，很少有研究表明在统计上有显著改善。纳入研究的质量普遍较低，存在方法学和报告的局限性。结论易读性干预措施可以提高患者的理解力和可接受性，但其对健康结果的长期影响仍不确定。未来的研究应评估持续效果，并探索在医疗机构的常规实施，以告知最佳实践。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Effectiveness and acceptability of interventions to improve readability of patient healthcare materials: A narrative systematic review

Objectives

Reading age is a key component of Health literacy (HL) yet many written healthcare materials in the UK exceed recommended reading levels, making them less accessible to much of the population. Creating barriers to understanding contributes to health inequalities. Simplifying the way information is written and terminology used could be a useful and low-cost approach to support HL, yet effectiveness of such interventions remains unclear. This study aims to systematically review evidence evaluating the effectiveness and acceptability of healthcare material readability interventions in high income countries.

Study design

Narrative systematic review.

Methods

Searches of CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, APA Psych Articles, and Psychology and Behavioral Science, databases from 2014 to 2024 were conducted. Articles title/abstract and full text were double screened. Eligible studies examined tailored or improved written healthcare materials across clinical specialities. Data extraction included study characteristics, and interventions’, impact on patient acceptability, comprehension and health outcomes. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used for critical appraisal.

Results

Thirty studies were included, predominantly from the USA. The majority evaluated interventions using simplified language, structured formatting, or visual enhancements. Findings indicated that simplified content was associated with greater patient understanding and preference. However, evidence on behavioural adherence and direct health outcomes was mixed, with few studies demonstrating statistically significant improvements. Quality of included studies was generally low, with methodological and reporting limitations.

Conclusions

Readability interventions can enhance patient comprehension and acceptability, yet their long-term impact on health outcomes remains uncertain. Future research should assess sustained effects and explore routine implementation in healthcare settings to inform best practices.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生

CiteScore

7.60

自引率

0.00%

发文量

280

审稿时长

37 days

期刊介绍： Public Health is an international, multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal. It publishes original papers, reviews and short reports on all aspects of the science, philosophy, and practice of public health.