The readability of parent information leaflets in paediatric studies

BackgroundPoor literacy can impact achieving optimal health outcomes. The aim of this project was to assess the readability of parent information leaflets (PILs).MethodsA single-centre study using paediatric PILs. Five readability tests were applied (Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Flesch Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI) and Automated Readability Index (ARI)). Results were compared to standards and by subtype.ResultsA total of 109 PILs were obtained; mean (+/- SD) number of characters was 14,365 (+/- 12,055), total words 3066 (+/- 2541), number of sentences 153 (+/- 112), lexical density 49 (+/- 3), number of characters per word 4.7 (+/- 0.1), number of syllables per word 1.6 (+/- 0.1) and number of words per sentence 19.1 (+/- 2.5). The Flesch reading ease score was 51.1 (+/- 5.6), equating to reading age 16-17 years. The mean PIL readability scores were GFI (12.18), SMOG (11.94), FKGL (10.89), CLI (10.08) and ARI (10.1). There were 0 (0%) PILs classed as easy (score <6), 21 (19%) mid-range (6-10) and 88 (81%) were difficult (>10). They were significantly above the recommended reading age (p < 0.0001) and commercial studies were least accessible (p < 0.01).ConclusionExisting PILs are above the national reading level. Researchers should use readability tools to ensure that they are accessible.ImpactPoor literacy is a barrier to accessing research and achieving good health outcomes.Current parent information leaflets are pitched far higher than the national reading age.This study provides data to demonstrate the reading age of a large portfolio of research studies.This work raises awareness of literacy as a barrier to research participation and provides tips on how to improve the readability of patient information leaflets to guide investigators.

Automated summary

The readability of parent information leaflets (PILs) was assessed in this study. Results showed that the existing PILs are pitched far higher than the national reading age. Therefore, researchers should use readability tools to ensure that they are accessible.