4.5 Article

Comprehensibility of South African pictograms by sub-Saharan African prospective-users

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 115, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2023.107930

关键词

Health Education; Drug Labeling; Visual Aids; Sub-Saharan Africa

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to explore the comprehensibility of South African pictograms by sub-Saharan migrant populations in Spain. The findings revealed that none of the evaluated pictograms met the validity criterion. The study highlights the need for new culturally sensitive pictograms that are easily understood by sub-Saharan African populations.
Objectives: This work aimed to explore the validity of South African pictograms to be comprehended by subSaharan migrant populations in Spain.Methods: A quantitative cross-sectional study was carried out. A voluntary survey was conducted among a population = 18 years of age in a Temporary Stay Centre for Immigrants located in Spain, in June 2022. The form included a culturally and linguistically validated version of the Health Literacy questionnaire (HLS-EU-Q16), a brief questionnaire of sociodemographic variables and 10 South African pictograms selected to assess the comprehension. According to the International Organization for Standardization, a pictogram must receive 66.70% correct answers to be acceptable. Mann-Whitney U or Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to assess differences between group variables. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.Results: 55 sub-Saharan migrants who newly arrived in Europe voluntarily agreed to participate. None of the pictograms evaluated met the validity criterion. For the selected pictograms, the range of correct answers was between 52.50% and 20.00%. Neither sociodemographic variables nor Health Literacy level were significantly associated with pictogram comprehensibility.Conclusion: New culturally sensitive pictograms that are easily comprehended by sub-Saharan African population are needed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据