Jahan Saulat, Al-Saigul Abdullah M, Alharbi Ali M, Abdelgadir Muzamil H
Research and Information Unit, Public Health Administration, Qassim, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Family Medicine Postgraduate Centre, Qassim, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
J Family Community Med. 2014 Sep;21(3):186-92. doi: 10.4103/2230-8229.142974.
Health education is the cornerstone of primary health care. Health education materials distributed to the community should, therefore, be suitable and effective. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the health education brochures, designed and disseminated by Ministry of Health institutions in the Qassim province.
The study was a cross-sectional review of health education brochures. We used a structured evaluation form, comprising general information on the brochures and a modified Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) score sheet. The SAM consisting of 22 criteria in six groups, includes content, literacy demands, graphics, layout/typography, learning stimulation/motivation, and cultural appropriateness. SAM criteria categorize written material into "superior," "adequate" and "not suitable." Two qualified consultant family physicians evaluated the brochures. Data were analyzed using Epi Info version 3.4 statistical package.
We evaluated 110 brochures, the majority of which addressed chronic health conditions such as mental health, diabetes mellitus and hypertension. Seventy-four (67.3%) brochures were evaluated as "adequate," 34 (30.9%) as "not suitable" and 2 (1.8%) as "superior." "Cultural appropriateness" was the highest scoring factor, with 92 (83.6%) brochures falling into either the "superior" or "adequate" category. With regard to "content," 88 (80.0%) brochures fell into either the "superior" or "adequate" category. This was the second highest scoring factor. Graphics was the factor that scored the least. Seventy-five (68.2%) brochures were rated in this factor as "not suitable."
Although two-thirds of our brochures were considered "adequate," the majority needed improvement to their graphics and learning stimulation factors. We recommend that guidelines for designing health education brochures should be formulated to improve the quality of health education brochures.
健康教育是初级卫生保健的基石。因此,分发给社区的健康教育材料应合适且有效。本研究的目的是评估卡西姆省卫生部机构设计并分发的健康教育手册。
本研究是对健康教育手册的横断面审查。我们使用了一份结构化评估表,包括手册的一般信息和一份经过修改的材料适用性评估(SAM)评分表。SAM由六组中的22项标准组成,包括内容、识字要求、图形、布局/排版、学习刺激/动机和文化适宜性。SAM标准将书面材料分为“优秀”、“ adequate”和“不合适”。两名合格的顾问家庭医生对手册进行了评估。使用Epi Info 3.4版统计软件包对数据进行分析。
我们评估了110份手册,其中大多数涉及慢性健康状况,如心理健康、糖尿病和高血压。74份(67.3%)手册被评估为“adequate”,34份(30.9%)为“不合适”,2份(1.8%)为“优秀”。“文化适宜性”是得分最高的因素,92份(83.6%)手册属于“优秀”或“adequate”类别。关于“内容”,88份(80.0%)手册属于“优秀”或“adequate”类别。这是得分第二高的因素。图形是得分最低的因素。75份(68.2%)手册在该因素上被评为“不合适”。
尽管我们三分之二的手册被认为“adequate”,但大多数手册在图形和学习刺激因素方面需要改进。我们建议制定健康教育手册设计指南,以提高健康教育手册的质量。