Biology Department, Franklin and Marshall College, 415 Harrisburg Avenue, Lancaster, PA, 17603, USA.
Department of Physical Therapy, University of Delaware, 210 South College Ave, Newark, DE, 19716, USA.
BMC Public Health. 2021 Oct 17;21(1):1874. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-11944-w.
Lead poisoning prevention efforts include preparing and disseminating informational materials such as brochures and pamphlets to increase awareness of lead poisoning, lead exposures and lead poisoning prevention. However, studies have demonstrated that patient education materials for diseases and health conditions are prepared at a reading level that is higher than the recommended 7th-8th grade reading level. This study, therefore, aims to assess the reading levels of lead poisoning informational materials.
Lead poisoning materials (N = 31) were accessed from three states; Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania. The readability levels of the materials were assessed using the Flesh Kincaid Grade Level readability test. The Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to determine if the readability levels differed between the materials obtained from the different states. Thematic content analyses were carried out to assess the inclusion of four themes; definition of lead poisoning, risk factors and exposures, testing and referral and prevention covering 12 subtopics. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to examine if there was a difference in the number of subtopics by readability level (dichotomized to >8th grade and < 8th grade).
The median readability level of the informational materials was 6.7 (IQR: 5.1-8.1). However, there was variability in the readability levels of the materials (range 3.5 to 10.6); materials obtained from Michigan had the highest median reading level of 8.1 (IQR: 6.9-9.0) followed by Pennsylvania. Heterogeneity was observed in the content of the materials. Most of the materials (80%) from Michigan focused on water as a source of lead poisoning, whereas materials from New York and Pennsylvania focused on lead-based paint and other sources. The materials prepared at >8th grade reading level contained fewer topics than materials prepared at <8th grade reading level.
We find that the materials were often prepared at reading levels lower than the recommended 8th grade reading level. However, there is variability in the reading levels and in the content of the materials. While the materials met the general readability guidelines, they did not necessarily meet the needs of specific groups, especially groups at risk.
铅中毒预防工作包括编写和传播宣传材料，如小册子和传单，以提高人们对铅中毒、铅暴露和铅中毒预防的认识。然而，研究表明，针对疾病和健康状况的患者教育材料的编写水平高于建议的 7 至 8 年级阅读水平。因此，本研究旨在评估铅中毒信息材料的阅读水平。
从密歇根州、纽约州和宾夕法尼亚州三个州获取铅中毒材料（N=31）。使用 Flesch-Kincaid 年级水平阅读测试评估材料的可读性水平。采用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验来确定不同州获得的材料之间的可读性水平是否存在差异。进行主题内容分析，以评估包含铅中毒定义、风险因素和暴露、测试和转介以及预防涵盖 12 个子主题的四个主题的材料。采用 Wilcoxon 秩和检验来检查可读性水平（分为>8 年级和<8 年级）是否会影响子主题数量。
信息材料的中位数可读性水平为 6.7（IQR：5.1-8.1）。然而，材料的可读性水平存在差异（范围为 3.5 至 10.6）；密歇根州获得的材料的中位数阅读水平最高为 8.1（IQR：6.9-9.0），其次是宾夕法尼亚州。材料内容存在异质性。密歇根州的大多数材料（80%）重点介绍水作为铅中毒的来源，而纽约州和宾夕法尼亚州的材料则重点介绍含铅油漆和其他来源。可读性水平高于 8 年级的材料包含的主题少于可读性水平低于 8 年级的材料。
我们发现，这些材料通常编写的阅读水平低于建议的 8 年级阅读水平。然而，材料的可读性水平和内容存在差异。虽然这些材料符合一般的可读性指南，但它们不一定满足特定群体，特别是高危群体的需求。
