Accessibility of standardized information of a national colorectal cancer screening program for low health literate screening invitees: A mixed method study. Issue 2 (February 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Fransen, Mirjam P.; Dekker, Evelien; Timmermans, Daniëlle R.M.; Uiters, Ellen; Essink-Bot, Marie-Louise
• Is Part Of: Patient education and counseling. Volume 100:Issue 2(2017)
• Page Start: 327
• Page End: 336
• Publication Date: 2017-02
• Subjects: Colorectal cancer -- Early detection of cancer -- Health literacy -- Decision-making -- Health communication; Patient education -- Periodicals; Health counseling -- Periodicals; Health education -- Periodicals; Counseling -- Periodicals; Patient Education -- Periodicals; Éducation des patients -- Périodiques; Counseling -- Périodiques; Éducation sanitaire -- Périodiques; 615.5071
• DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.09.004
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0738-3991

Abstract

Highlights: Standard information of the Dutch colorectal screening program was linguistically well designed. Low health literate invitees had difficulties to access standard information materials. Screening-relevant knowledge remained suboptimal after reading. Screening information strategies need adjustment to skills of low health literate invitees. Abstract: Objective: To explore the accessibility of standardized printed information materials of the national Dutch colorectal cancer screening program among low health literate screening invitees and to assess the effect of the information on their knowledge about colorectal cancer and the screening program. Methods: Linguistic tools were used to analyze the text and design characteristics. The accessibility, comprehensibility and relevance of the information materials were explored in interviews and in observations (n = 25). The effect of the information on knowledge was assessed in an online survey (n = 127). Results: The materials employed a simple text and design. However, respondents expressed problems with the amount of information, and the difference between screening and diagnostic follow-up. Knowledge significantly increased in 10 out of 16 items after reading the information but remained low for colorectal cancer risk, sensitivity of testing, and the voluntariness of colorectal cancer screening. Conclusion: Despite intelligible linguistic and design characteristics, screening invitees with low health literacy had problems in accessing, comprehending and applying standard information materials on colorectal cancer screening, and lacked essential knowledge for informed decision-making about participation. Practice implications: To enable equal access to informed decision-making, information strategies need to be adjusted to the skills of low health literate screening invitees.