Olivia Mac, Julie Ayre, Kirsten McCaffery, Corine S Meppelink, Danielle M Muscat
{"title":"健康信息可读性评估的研究重点:一项修正eDelphi研究。","authors":"Olivia Mac, Julie Ayre, Kirsten McCaffery, Corine S Meppelink, Danielle M Muscat","doi":"10.1080/10810730.2026.2670325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Readability assessments are routinely used in health contexts to evaluate and revise written health information. However, there are many research gaps, as well as a lack of consensus and limited guidelines regarding how to conduct readability assessments. This study uses an eDelphi methodology to identify and gain expert consensus on research priorities to determine the role of readability assessment in health literate document design. Panelists participated in two rounds of online surveys to rate the importance of 25 candidate research questions pertaining to five broad categories (the effect of readability on outcomes, readability in practice, conducting readability analyses, grade reading level thresholds, and readability and translation). We analyzed responses for consensus (70% agreement), with research questions not achieving consensus re-fielded in subsequent rounds. Two survey rounds were completed by 35 and 30 participants, respectively. Of the 31 research questions rated in at least one round, 20 (65%) achieved consensus and were considered a research priority. Four of the top five research priorities related to understanding the effect of improving readability on cognitive, behavioral and health-related outcomes. Another top priority was understanding the role of AI in improving readability. Consensus demonstrated a need to understand the effect of improving readability on cognitive, behavioral and health-related outcomes. By identifying a list of research priorities, these findings provide a clear and actionable list of future directions.</p>","PeriodicalId":16026,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Communication","volume":"31 4","pages":"183-190"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Research Priorities for Readability Assessment of Health Information: A Modified eDelphi Study.\",\"authors\":\"Olivia Mac, Julie Ayre, Kirsten McCaffery, Corine S Meppelink, Danielle M Muscat\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10810730.2026.2670325\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Readability assessments are routinely used in health contexts to evaluate and revise written health information. However, there are many research gaps, as well as a lack of consensus and limited guidelines regarding how to conduct readability assessments. This study uses an eDelphi methodology to identify and gain expert consensus on research priorities to determine the role of readability assessment in health literate document design. Panelists participated in two rounds of online surveys to rate the importance of 25 candidate research questions pertaining to five broad categories (the effect of readability on outcomes, readability in practice, conducting readability analyses, grade reading level thresholds, and readability and translation). We analyzed responses for consensus (70% agreement), with research questions not achieving consensus re-fielded in subsequent rounds. Two survey rounds were completed by 35 and 30 participants, respectively. Of the 31 research questions rated in at least one round, 20 (65%) achieved consensus and were considered a research priority. Four of the top five research priorities related to understanding the effect of improving readability on cognitive, behavioral and health-related outcomes. Another top priority was understanding the role of AI in improving readability. Consensus demonstrated a need to understand the effect of improving readability on cognitive, behavioral and health-related outcomes. By identifying a list of research priorities, these findings provide a clear and actionable list of future directions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16026,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Health Communication\",\"volume\":\"31 4\",\"pages\":\"183-190\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Health Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2026.2670325\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2026/6/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Communication","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2026.2670325","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
Research Priorities for Readability Assessment of Health Information: A Modified eDelphi Study.
Readability assessments are routinely used in health contexts to evaluate and revise written health information. However, there are many research gaps, as well as a lack of consensus and limited guidelines regarding how to conduct readability assessments. This study uses an eDelphi methodology to identify and gain expert consensus on research priorities to determine the role of readability assessment in health literate document design. Panelists participated in two rounds of online surveys to rate the importance of 25 candidate research questions pertaining to five broad categories (the effect of readability on outcomes, readability in practice, conducting readability analyses, grade reading level thresholds, and readability and translation). We analyzed responses for consensus (70% agreement), with research questions not achieving consensus re-fielded in subsequent rounds. Two survey rounds were completed by 35 and 30 participants, respectively. Of the 31 research questions rated in at least one round, 20 (65%) achieved consensus and were considered a research priority. Four of the top five research priorities related to understanding the effect of improving readability on cognitive, behavioral and health-related outcomes. Another top priority was understanding the role of AI in improving readability. Consensus demonstrated a need to understand the effect of improving readability on cognitive, behavioral and health-related outcomes. By identifying a list of research priorities, these findings provide a clear and actionable list of future directions.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives is the leading journal covering the full breadth of a field that focuses on the communication of health information globally. Articles feature research on: • Developments in the field of health communication; • New media, m-health and interactive health communication; • Health Literacy; • Social marketing; • Global Health; • Shared decision making and ethics; • Interpersonal and mass media communication; • Advances in health diplomacy, psychology, government, policy and education; • Government, civil society and multi-stakeholder initiatives; • Public Private partnerships and • Public Health campaigns. Global in scope, the journal seeks to advance a synergistic relationship between research and practical information. With a focus on promoting the health literacy of the individual, caregiver, provider, community, and those in the health policy, the journal presents research, progress in areas of technology and public health, ethics, politics and policy, and the application of health communication principles. The journal is selective with the highest quality social scientific research including qualitative and quantitative studies.