Downey Tina, Millar Beverley C, Moore John E
School of Biomedical Sciences, Ulster University, Coleraine, UK.
Laboratory for Disinfection and Pathogen Elimination Studies, Northern Ireland Public Health Laboratory, Nightingale (Belfast City) Hospital, Corry Building, Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7AD, UK.
Ther Adv Vaccines Immunother. 2022 Aug 22;10:25151355221118812. doi: 10.1177/25151355221118812. eCollection 2022.
Historically, there have been many factors that have influenced mumps, measles and rubella (MMR) vaccine uptake, including media bias, social/economic determinants, parental education level, deprivation and concerns over vaccine safety. Readability metrics through online tools are now emerging as a means for healthcare professionals to determine the readability of patient-facing vaccine information. The aim of this study was to examine the readability of patient-facing materials describing MMR vaccination, through employment of nine readability and text parameter metrics, and to compare these with MMR vaccination literature for healthcare professionals and scientific abstracts relating to MMR vaccination.
The subscription-based online Readable program (readable.com) was used to determine nine readability indices using various readability formulae: Established readability metrics ( = 5) (Flesch-Kinkaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog Index, SMOG Index, Flesch Reading Ease and New Dale-Chall Score), as well as Text parameters ( = 4) (sentence count, word count, number of words per sentence, number of syllables per word) with 47 MMR vaccination texts [patient-facing literature ( = 22); healthcare professional-focused literature ( = 8); scientific abstracts ( = 17)].
Patient-facing vaccination literature had a Flesch Reading Ease score of 58.4 and a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 8.1, in comparison with poorer readability scores for healthcare professional literature of 30.7 and 12.6, respectively. MMR scientific abstracts had the poorest readability (24.0 and 14.8, respectively). Sentence structure was also considered, where better readability metrics were correlated with significantly lower number of words per sentence and less syllables per word.
Use of these readability tools enables the author to ensure their research is more readable to the lay audience. Patient co-production initiatives would help to ensure that not only can the target audience read the literature, but that they understand the content. Increased patient-centric focus groups would give better insights into reasons for MMR-associated vaccine hesitation and vaccine refusal.
从历史上看，有许多因素影响了腮腺炎、麻疹和风疹（MMR）疫苗的接种率，包括媒体偏见、社会/经济决定因素、父母教育水平、贫困以及对疫苗安全性的担忧。通过在线工具进行的可读性指标如今正成为医疗保健专业人员确定面向患者的疫苗信息可读性的一种手段。本研究的目的是通过采用九种可读性和文本参数指标，检查描述MMR疫苗接种的面向患者材料的可读性，并将其与面向医疗保健专业人员的MMR疫苗接种文献以及与MMR疫苗接种相关的科学摘要进行比较。
使用基于订阅的在线Readable程序（readable.com），通过各种可读性公式确定九个可读性指标：既定的可读性指标（=5）（弗莱什-金凯德年级水平、冈宁雾度指数、烟雾指数、弗莱什阅读简易度和新戴尔-查尔得分），以及文本参数（=4）（句子数量、单词数量、每个句子的单词数量、每个单词的音节数量），涉及47篇MMR疫苗接种文本[面向患者的文献（=22）；以医疗保健专业人员为重点的文献（=8）；科学摘要（=17）]。
面向患者的疫苗接种文献的弗莱什阅读简易度得分为58.4，弗莱什-金凯德年级水平为8.1，相比之下，面向医疗保健专业人员的文献可读性得分分别较差，为30.7和12.6。MMR科学摘要的可读性最差（分别为24.0和14.8）。还考虑了句子结构，其中更好的可读性指标与每个句子明显更少的单词数量和每个单词更少的音节数量相关。
使用这些可读性工具可使作者确保其研究对普通受众更具可读性。患者共同参与计划将有助于确保目标受众不仅能阅读文献，而且能理解内容。以患者为中心的焦点小组增加将能更好地洞察与MMR相关的疫苗犹豫和疫苗拒绝的原因。
