InterventionThe effects of two health information texts on patient recognition memory: A randomized controlled trial
Introduction
Next to verbal interactions in face-to-face or telephonic patient-provider encounters, text documents are the most common way of providing patient health information [1], [2]. Given the high prevalence of low literacy in the United States (U.S.) [3], a general recommendation for maximizing patient comprehension is to make health information texts as simple as possible (e.g. by reducing reading level), without losing key context and meaning [1]. While observational studies provide support for this recommendation [4], evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is scant.
In the past 30 years, only seven published RCTs have explored the effects of simplified health information texts on comprehension, with mixed findings [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Focus health issues in the various RCTs were warfarin use [7], human immunodeficiency virus infection risk [11], polio vaccination [5], [6], smoking [9], and informed consent for experimental chemotherapy [8], [10]. The limited number of trials in this realm, with differing health topics and mixed findings, suggest the need for further RCTs comparing comprehension of different health information texts, encompassing additional health topics.
No RCTs have compared patient comprehension of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening documents that differ in design and content focus. This is a key research gap given that CRC screening is a relatively complex health topic given several available test options, each with differing pros and cons [12]. Perhaps, in part, for this reason, CRC screening knowledge and uptake are low in the U.S. population relative to other evidence-based cancer screening tests [13], [14], [15], [16]. Further, no trials have addressed whether patient education level and health literacy may influence comprehension of different CRC screening texts. This is also important to research, since CRC screening knowledge and uptake are low among less educated and less literate persons in the U.S. [13], [14], [15], [16]. Theoretically, text design features anticipated to facilitate comprehension (e.g. lower reading level, use of comparative tables) should most benefit persons with low education and literacy. Of particular clinical interest and practical importance is whether patient self-assessed health literacy is associated with comprehension of different texts. National quality improvement blueprints encourage universal health literacy assessment in clinical settings [1], yet time constraints often preclude the use of objective measures, prompting exploration of employing brief patient self-assessment “screeners” [17], [18], [19].
Prior RCTs comparing patient comprehension of different health texts used various measures to assess comprehension, a complex, multi-faceted construct (process) that cannot be directly observed, and for which controversy exists regarding optimal measurement [20]. None of the prior RCTs sought to measure inferential comprehension, or inference of meanings not directly explained (i.e. implicit) in a text, a conceptually high level activity of clear relevance to health education and behavior [21]. However, validly and reliably measuring inferential comprehension is difficult, since it is strongly dependent on reasoning skills [22]. Fortunately, assessing inferential comprehension may not be critical when comparing the degree to which different texts explicitly convey basic information regarding a given health topic, since this is essentially a matter of lower level or literal comprehension [21]. Furthermore, literal comprehension is a prerequisite to and predictive of inferential comprehension [21], [22], [23], [24]. Likely for these reasons, prior RCTs have examined text effects on one or both of two aspects of literal comprehension: recall memory, the ability to remember elements of a previously viewed text without visual prompting [5], [6], [8], [11]; and recognition memory, the ability to accurately recognize previously viewed information when encountered again in written form [7], [9], [10], [11].
The recall memory measures in prior RCTs employed open-ended verbal questioning of participants, requiring study personnel judgment in determining the appropriateness of responses, potentially resulting in bias. The recognition memory measures in the prior RCTs were written multiple choice and/or true-false items, which are vulnerable to educated guessing and response bias (e.g. a tendency to prefer true to false answers) [25]. Verbal open-ended recall memory questions and written multiple choice and true-false recognition memory questions also are susceptible to confounding by pre-existing knowledge of the health topic, since they typically do not require participants to correctly identify verbatim passages (e.g. complete sentences) from viewed texts.
Employing a signal detection theory-grounded approach to measuring recognition memory can help to minimize the effects of response bias and background knowledge confounding on recognition memory scores, providing a purer estimation of the effects of texts themselves on literal comprehension. Signal detection theory recognizes that most human decisions are made under conditions of uncertainty [26]. The theory further recognizes that under such conditions, human judgments do not always arise from a fully balanced, well-reasoned, and accurate assessment of the situation, but instead are often driven largely or fully by educated guessing, innate biases (e.g. response option preferences), or the overriding influence of background contextual knowledge. These underlying tenets of signal detection theory have been employed to inform an approach to measuring recognition memory that minimizes response bias and background knowledge confounding. Briefly, a written recognition memory test is developed incorporating an equal number of verbatim statements extracted from each study text being compared in a RCT [27], [28]. Study participants are then asked to identify the statements that appeared in their randomly assigned text. Both correctly identified statements (“hits” – a measure of sensitivity) and incorrectly identified statements (“false alarms” – those that had actually appeared in the other study text – to capture response bias effects) are employed to calculate a summary discriminability or d prime (d′) score – essentially, an indicator of the “true signal” relative to “noise” (bias and confounding effects) in participant responses. This approach is well-established in psycholinguistic and cognitive science studies but, to our knowledge, has not been used in text comprehension RCTs in the biomedical realm [27], [28], [29].
We conducted a RCT, comparing patient recognition memory of an experimental colorectal cancer screening (CRC) information text and of a control CRC screening text. The experimental text was written at a lower Flesch–Kincaid reading grade level, focused more on addressing practical CRC screening barriers, and relied more heavily on tabular presentation of information than the control text. We also explored the roles of patient education level and self-assessed health literacy in influencing text recognition memory. We employed a written signal detection theory-grounded measure to derive a recognition memory d′ score, accounting for both item recognition sensitivity and response bias effects. We hypothesized that: (1) compared with controls, experimental group patients would have better recognition memory of their randomly assigned text; and (2) the benefit in recognition memory would be restricted to patients with less education and lower self-assessed health literacy.
Section snippets
Study setting, sample recruitment, and randomization
Study activities were conducted from September 2009 through March 2010. The local institutional review board approved the study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00965965).
English-speaking persons aged 50–75 years receiving primary care from a family physician or general internist at one of two offices in the Sacramento, California area were telephoned to solicit their participation. The lower and upper age cut points for study participation were selected based on U.S. Preventive Services Task
Results
Fig. 1 shows the flow of participants through the study. One experimental group subject with missing education data was excluded from the analyses, leaving an analytic sample of 59 patients (29 experimental, 30 control). Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics of the analytic sample by study group. Participants were predominantly non-Hispanic white and well-educated, with high self-assessed health literacy. The correlation between education level and self-assessed health literacy was not
Discussion
Prior RCTs examining the effects of different health information texts on patient literal comprehension did not concern the topic of CRC screening, and did not explore the potential influences of education or self-assessed health literacy [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. The prior RCTs also did not employ signal detection theory-grounded recognition memory measures, to help disentangle the effects of study texts on literal comprehension from the effects of background topical knowledge,
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Role of funding
This work was funded in part by a National Cancer Institute Grant (R01CA131386, A.J.); a California Academy of Family Physicians Research Externship Grant (T.R.); and a UC Davis Department of Family and Community Medicine Research Grant (A.J.). The funders had no role in the study design; the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; the writing of the report; or the decision to submit the paper for publication.
References (40)
- et al.
A polio immunization pamphlet with increased appeal and simplified language does not improve comprehension to an acceptable level
Patient Educ Couns
(1998) - et al.
Generation of allocation sequences in randomised trials: chance, not choice
Lancet
(2002) - et al.
Processing subject and object relative clauses: evidence from eye movements
J Mem Lang
(2002) Health literacy: a prescription to end confusion
(2004)Health literacy: report of the council on scientific affairs
J Amer Med Assoc
(1999)- et al.
Literacy and health outcomes: a systematic review of the literature
J Gen Intern Med
(2004) - et al.
A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and web-based cancer information
Health Educ Behav
(2006) - et al.
Parent comprehension of polio vaccine information pamphlets
Pediatrics
(1996) - et al.
Patient comprehension of written drug information
Am J Hosp Pharm
(1980) - et al.
Informed consent for clinical trials: a comparative study of standard versus simplified forms
J Natl Cancer Inst
(1998)
Improving patient comprehension of literature on smoking
Am J Public Health
Randomized, controlled trial of an easy-to-read informed consent statement for clinical trial participation: a study of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
J Clin Oncol
Improving comprehension for HIV vaccine trial information among adolescents at risk of HIV
AIDS Care
Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement
Ann Intern Med
The role of inadequate health literacy skills in colorectal cancer screening
Cancer Invest
Colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs among veterans: does literacy make a difference?
J Clin Oncol
The influence of health literacy on colorectal cancer screening knowledge, beliefs and behavior
J Natl Med Assoc
Determinants of racial/ethnic colorectal cancer screening disparities
Arch Intern Med
The Single Item Literacy Screener: evaluation of a brief instrument to identify limited reading ability
BMC Fam Pract
Validation of screening questions for limited health literacy in a large VA outpatient population
J Gen Intern Med
Cited by (9)
Sociopsychological tailoring to address colorectal cancer screening disparities: A randomized controlled trial
2014, Annals of Family MedicineCitation Excerpt :Consistent with adult learning and behavioral theory, the IMCP allowed patients to decide how much information to view.6,43–45 The texts for the English and Spanish IMCP versions (average Flesch-Kincaid reading grade level 7.4) were developed by a previously described process.40,46 Examples of tailored IMCP content are available from the authors.
Readability assessment of the British Association of Dermatologists’ patient information leaflets
2022, Clinical and Experimental DermatologyHealth Literacy Interventions in Cancer: a Systematic Review
2021, Journal of Cancer EducationDiscussions of Potential Mammography Benefits and Harms among Patients with Limited Health Literacy and Providers: “Oh, There are Harms?”
2020, Journal of Health CommunicationMethodological review: Quality of randomized controlled trials in health literacy
2016, BMC Health Services Research