Abstract
Objective Complex and ineffective health communication is a critical and persistent source of inequity in our health systems. This occurs despite repeated policy directives to provide patients and community with health information that is easy to understand and that applies health literacy principles. This study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of the Sydney Health Literacy Lab (SHeLL) Health Literacy Editor, an easy-to-use online plain language tool that supports health information providers to apply health literacy guidelines to written health information.
Design Randomised controlled trial with analysts blind to intervention group.
Setting Online study, Australia
Participants 188 health information providers with no previous experience using the Health Literacy Editor (mean age 41.0 (SD=11.6); 154 female (85%)).
Intervention Participants were provided access to the Health Literacy Editor and a 30-minute online training program prior to editing three pre-specified health texts. The Health Literacy Editor gives objective, real-time, and fine-grained feedback on words and sentences. Control participants were asked to revise the texts using their own standard health information development processes.
Main outcome measure Pre-registered primary outcome was text grade reading score (using validated instrument, the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook). Secondary outcomes were use of complex language (% of the text) and passive voice (number of instances), subjective expert ratings (Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool), and acceptability ratings (System Usability Scale; Technology Acceptance Model).
Results Texts revised in the intervention group had significantly improved grade reading scores relative to control (Mean Difference (MD)=2.48, 95% CI=1.84 to 3.12, p<0.001, d=0.99), lower text complexity (MD=6.86, 95% CI=4.99 to 8.74, p<0.001, d=0.95) and less passive voice (MD=0.95, 95% CI=0.4 to 1.5, p<0.001, d=0.53) in intention-to-treat analyses. Experts rated texts in the intervention group more favourably for word choice and style than those in the control group (MD=0.44, 95% CI=0.25 to 0.63, p<0.001, d=0.63), with no loss of meaning or content. Participants rated the Health Literacy Editor an acceptable product (71.0/100, SD=13.7) that was useful (3.8/5, SD=0.7) and easy to use (4.0/5, SD=0.6).
Conclusions and relevance The Health Literacy Editor helped users simplify health information and apply health literacy guidelines to written text. It has high potential to improve development of health information for people who have low health literacy. As an online tool the Health Literacy Editor is also easy to access and implement at scale.
Trial registration ACTRN12623000386639
Section 1: What is already known on this topic?
Most health information is hard for people to understand, particularly those who are older, with less education, or who speak English as a second language.
Systematic reviews show that texts that follow health literacy guidelines (e.g. use simpler words, shorter sentences and active voice) are easier for people to understand and recall.
There are few automated tools that guide development of easy-to-understand written health information and none that have been rigorously evaluated in a randomised controlled trial.
Section 2: What this study adds
Participants who used the Health Literacy Editor were able to more effectively simplify health information compared to participants in the control group.
On average participants in the intervention group produced texts suitable for a person with almost 2.5 fewer years of school education compared to those in the control group. Similar patterns were observed for complex language and passive voice.
The Health Literacy Editor is an effective tool to support development of written health information that adheres to plain language principles. It can be used in clinical and non-clinical settings and implemented at scale.
Competing Interest Statement
The SHeLL Health Literacy Editor is a tool owned by the University of Sydney. It has been licensed to Health Literacy Solutions PTY Ltd to allow for commercialisation and enable wider public use. DMM, KJM, CB and JA are co-directors of Health Literacy Solutions PTY Ltd. DMM, KJM, CB and JA take no personal income from Health Literacy Solutions PTY Ltd or the SHeLL Health Literacy Editor. The University of Sydney retains IP and is a shareholder.
Clinical Trial
ACTRN12623000386639
Funding Statement
JA is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council fellowship (APP 2017278).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/276).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Deidentified data will be made available on reasonable request.
