Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

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
. 2011;14(4-5):222-37.
doi: 10.1159/000273689. Epub 2010 Jan 4.

Literacy assessment of family health history tools for public health prevention

C Wang  1 , R E Gallo, L Fleisher, S M Miller
Affiliations

Literacy assessment of family health history tools for public health prevention

C Wang et al. Public Health Genomics. 2011.

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to systematically identify and evaluate the readability and document complexity of currently available family history tools for the general public.

Methods: Three steps were undertaken to identify family history tools for evaluation: (a) Internet searches, (b) expert consultation, and (c) literature searches. Tools identified were assessed for readability using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) readability formula. The complexity of documents (i.e., forms collecting family history information) was assessed using the PMOSE/IKIRSCH document readability formula.

Results: A total of 78 tools were identified, 47 of which met the criteria for inclusion. SMOG reading grade levels for multimedia-based tools ranged from 10.1 to 18.3, with an average score of 13.6. For print-based tools, SMOG ranged from 8.7 to 14.1, with an average score of 12.0. Document complexity ranged from very low complexity (level 1 proficiency) to high complexity (level 4 proficiency).

Conclusion: The majority of tools are written at a reading grade level that is beyond the 8th grade average reading level in the United States. The lack of family history tools that are easy to read or use may compromise their potential effectiveness in identifying individuals at increased risk for chronic diseases in the general population.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Example of documents with differing complexity levels.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Nielson-Bohlman L, Panzer AM, KIndig DA, editors. Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2004. - PubMed
    1. Schwartzberg JG, VanGeest JB, Wang CC, editors. Understanding Health Literacy: Implications for Medicine and Public Health. Chicago: AMA Press; 2005. pp. 96–97.
    1. Kirsh IS, Jungeblut A, Jenkins L, Kolstad A. Adult literacy in America: A first look at the results of the national adult literacy survey (Report SR5). Educational Testing Service. Princeton, NJ: National Center for Educational Statistics (Ed); 1993. Washington, DC.
    1. Rudd RE. Health literacy skills of us adults. Am J Health Behav. 2007;31:S8–S18. - PubMed
    1. Rudd RE, Kirsch I, Yamamoto K. Literacy and health in America (Global Assessment Policy Report) Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service; 2004.

Publication types