Cited by 197Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareText Readability and Simplification

Aphasia friendly written health information: Content and design characteristics

Rose, Tanya A., Worrall, Linda E., Hickson, Louise M., Hoffmann, Tammy C.·2011·International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology

Abstract

People with aphasia need communicatively accessible written health information. Healthcare providers require knowledge of how to develop printed education materials (PEMs) in formats that people with aphasia prefer and can read. This study aimed to explore formatting characteristics considered to be barriers and facilitators to reading PEMs. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 40 adults with aphasia who were selected using maximum variation sampling across aphasia severity, reading ability, and time post-stroke. Participants were shown stroke and aphasia PEMs obtained from the recruiting stroke services, asked to rank them from most liked to least liked, and comment on factors that made the PEMs easier and harder to read. The majority of participants ranked the aphasia friendly stroke (56.4%, n = 22) and aphasia (87.2%, n = 34) PEMs as most liked. Forty-five facilitator and 46 barrier codes were identified using qualitative content analysis and grouped into two categories; (1) content characteristics and (2) design characteristics. Findings support many of the recommendations found within the literature for developing best practice PEMs and accessible information for other patient groups. Routine consideration of the facilitators and barriers identified will contribute to making written information more accessible to people with aphasia.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/17549507.2011.560396

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The literature recommends using bullet points, bolded keywords, headings, and signposting for developing visualizations for people with communication difficulties.

    “We also prioritized using bullet points, bolded keywords, headings, and signposting, as recommended in the literature [3, 7, 56] for developing visualizations for people with communication difficulties in our designs.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rose, T. A., Worrall, L. E., Hickson, L. M., & Hoffmann, T. C.
Affiliations
The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Rose, Tanya A.
Venue
International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
Published
2011-06-17
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
335-347
ISSN
  • 1441-7049 (ISSN-L)
  • 1754-9507
  • 1754-9515
OpenAlex
W2071218645
Cited by
197
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
FWCI
11.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Text Readability and Simplification
Keywords
aphasia, written health information, stroke, accessibility, information design, patient education, stroke rehabilitation, aphasia severity, reading skills
MeSH terms
Stroke Rehabilitation, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aphasia, Communication, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Pamphlets, Patient Education as Topic, Queensland, Reading, Patient Satisfaction, Stroke, Access to Information, Comprehension, Qualitative Research, Consumer Health Information

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review