Assessing the readability of written health information is a common way to evaluate whether patients are likely to understand it.¹ Readability is an objective measure that estimates a text’s equivalent school-grade reading level and is increasingly recommended globally in health policies.^2,3 Several formulas for calculating readability exist, and scores can vary substantially depending on the formula applied.⁴ There has also been a proliferation of automated online calculators that provide readability estimates within seconds. However, the accuracy and consistency of automated calculators have not been evaluated.

Producing health information that people can easily understand is challenging and time-consuming. Existing guidance is often subjective and lacks specificity. With advances in software that reads and analyzes text, there is an opportunity to develop tools that provide objective, specific, and automated guidance on the complexity of health information. This paper outlines the development of the SHeLL (Sydney Health Literacy Lab) Health Literacy Editor, an automated tool to facilitate the implementation of health literacy guidelines for the production of easy-to-read written health information. Target users were any person or organization that develops consumer-facing education materials, with or without prior experience with health literacy concepts. Anticipated users included health professionals, staff, and government and nongovernment agencies. To develop this tool, existing health literacy and relevant writing guidelines were collated. Items amenable to programmable automated assessment were incorporated into the Editor. A set of natural language processing methods were also adapted for use in the SHeLL Editor, though the approach was primarily procedural (rule-based). As a result of this process, the Editor comprises 6 assessments: readability (school grade reading score calculated using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG)), complex language (percentage of the text that contains public health thesaurus entries, words that are uncommon in English, or acronyms), passive voice, text structure (eg, use of long paragraphs), lexical density and diversity, and person-centered language. These are presented as global scores, with additional, more specific feedback flagged in the text itself. Feedback is provided in real-time so that users can iteratively revise and improve the text. The design also includes a “text preparation” mode, which allows users to quickly make adjustments to ensure accurate calculation of readability. A hierarchy of assessments also helps users prioritize the most important feedback. Lastly, the Editor has a function that exports the analysis and revised text. The SHeLL Health Literacy Editor is a new tool that can help improve the quality and safety of written health information. It provides objective, immediate feedback on a range of factors, complementing readability with other less widely used but important objective assessments such as complex and person-centered language. It can be used as a scalable intervention to support the uptake of health literacy guidelines by health services and providers of health information. This early prototype can be further refined by expanding the thesaurus and leveraging new machine learning methods for assessing the complexity of the written text. User-testing with health professionals is needed before evaluating the Editor’s ability to improve the health literacy of written health information and evaluating its implementation into existing Australian health services.

Background: Previous research suggests that it would be useful to view health literacy as a set of ‘distributed competencies’, which can be found dispersed through the individual's social network, rather than an exclusively individual attribute. However, to date there is no focused exploration of how distributed health literacy has been defined, conceptualized or assessed in the peer‐reviewed literature.Aims: This systematic review aimed to explore: (1) definitions and conceptual models of distributed health literacy that are available from the peer‐reviewed literature; and (2) how distributed health literacy has been measured in empirical research.Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Scopus, ERIC and Web of Science using truncated versions of the keywords ‘literacy’ and ‘distributed’ (within five words' distance). We collated the definitions and conceptual models of distributed health literacy, and report on how health literacy has been measured in empirical research studies. Findings related to distributed health literacy from included manuscripts were synthesized using thematic synthesis.Results: Of the 642 studies screened, 10 were included in this systematic review. The majority were empirical manuscripts reporting on qualitative research in one of five countries, with two reviews, one conceptual analysis and one quantitative study. Edwards' definition of distributed health literacy, which emphasizes the health literacy abilities, skills and practices of others that contribute to an individual's level of health literacy was widely applied in a variety of clinical and geographical settings. However, we did not identify any quantitative instruments which directly measured distributed health literacy. There was significant variability in questions used to explore the concept qualitatively, and discrepancies across studies in regard to (a) what constitutes distributed health literacy and what does not (e.g., general social support), and (b) the relationship between distributed health literacy and other constructs (e.g., public health literacy).Conclusion: Although there is a widely applied definition of distributed health literacy, our review revealed that the research space would benefit from the development of the concept, both theoretically for example via conceptual distinctions between distributed health literacy and other types of social support, and empirically for example through the development of a quantitative measurement instrument.Patient or Public Contribution: This paper is a systematic review and did not involve patients or the public.

Click on the article title to read more.