VOOZH about

URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39984643/

⇱ Readability of paediatric participant information leaflets in research studies - PubMed


Clipboard, Search History, and several other advanced features are temporarily unavailable.
Skip to main page content
👁 Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

👁 Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

Abstract

Background: Information leaflets in research studies should be age-appropriate to be understood, however the formal readability of children's participant information leaflets (PILs) for research studies has not been assessed.

Methods: A single-centre cross-sectional study assessing paediatric PILs. Six readability tests were applied (Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Flesch Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Automated Readability Index (ARI) and Flesch Reading Ease score (FRE). Results were compared between age groups, and whether the PIL was from either a commercially sponsored or investigator led study.

Results: 191 paediatric PILs were included. Age categories; <10 years (n = 65), ≤12 (n = 73), ≤15 (n = 73) and ≥16 (n = 61); were used for analysis. There were 39 commercial PILs and 226 non-commercial PILs. For the ≤10 and ≤12 age bands, all 6 median readability scores exceeded the target age group (thus hard to read, p < 0.005), and there was no difference in readability scores between these two age bands. Four scores from the readability tests were considered age-appropriate in the ≤15 year category, and all median scores were age-appropriate in the ≥16 years age groups. Readability scores for children's PILs were significantly higher in commercially sponsored versus non-commercial studies (P < 0.005).

Conclusion: Improvements are required to make children's PILs readable for the target audience, particularly in commercially sponsored research studies.

Impact: Paediatric participant information leaflets may not be readable in research studies, especially in younger age groups. PILs for children participating in commercially sponsored studies were less readable than non-commercial studies. Research teams writing PILs for a paediatric study need to consider the use of readability tools to ensure that the information they are providing is readable by the target audience.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

👁 Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Boxplot of SMOG readability score for paediatric PIL’s assessed within the specified age groups.
Number and the dashed lines in red represent the accepted SMOG readability score for that age group.

References

    1. Williams, J. The Skills for Life Survey: A National Needs and Impact Survey of Literacy, Numeracy and Ict Skills. Department for Education and Skills (DFES)490, (2003).
    1. Berkman, N. D., Sheridan, S. L., Donahue, K. E., Halpern, D. J. & Crotty, K. Low Health Literacy and Health Outcomes: An Updated Systematic Review. Ann. Intern Med.155, 97–107 (2011). - DOI - PubMed
    1. Simpson, R. M., Knowles, E. & O’Cathain, A. Health Literacy Levels of British Adults: A Cross-Sectional Survey Using Two Domains of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (Hlq). BMC Public Health20, 1819 (2020). - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Liu, L., Qian, X., Chen, Z. & He, T. Health Literacy and Its Effect on Chronic Disease Prevention: Evidence from China’s Data. BMC Public Health20, 690 (2020). - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nash, E., Bickerstaff, M., Chetwynd, A. J., Hawcutt, D. B. & Oni, L. The Readability of Parent Information Leaflets in Paediatric Studies. Pediatr. Res.94, 1166–1171 (2023). - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Cite

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.