↓ Skip to main content

An analysis of the readability characteristics of oral health information literature available to the public in Tasmania, Australia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Oral Health, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An analysis of the readability characteristics of oral health information literature available to the public in Tasmania, Australia
Published in
BMC Oral Health, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12903-016-0196-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tony Barnett, Ha Hoang, Ashlea Furlan

Abstract

The effectiveness of print-based health promotion materials is dependent on their readability. This study aimed to assess the characteristics of print-based oral health information literature publically available in Tasmania, Australia. Oral health education brochures were collected from 11 dental clinics across Tasmania and assessed for structure and format, content and readability. Reading level was calculated using three widely-used measures: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Flesch Reading Ease, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) reading grade level. The FKGL of the 67 brochures sampled ranged from grade 3 to 13. The grade level for government health department brochures (n = 14) ranged from grade 4 to 11 (5.6 ± 1.8). Reading levels for materials produced by commercial sources (n = 22) ranged from 3 to 13 (8.3 ± 2.1), those from professional associations (n = 22) ranged from grade 7 to 11 (8.9 ± 0.9) and brochures produced by other sources (n = 9) ranged from 5 to 10 (7.6 ± 1.5). The SMOG test was positively correlated with the FKGL (rs = 0.92, p < 0.001) though consistently rated materials 2-3 grades higher. The reading level required to comprehend brochures published by government sources were, on average, lower than those from commercial, professional and other sources. Government materials were also more likely to contain fewer words and professional jargon terms than brochures from the other sources. A range of oral health information brochures were publically available for patients in both public and private dental clinics. However, their readability characteristics differed. Many brochures required a reading skill level higher than that suited to a large proportion of the Tasmanian population. Readability and other characteristics of oral health education materials should be assessed to ensure their suitability for use with patients, especially those suspected of having low literacy skills.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 6 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Librarian 4 11%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 8 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 September 2017.
All research outputs
#18,447,592
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from BMC Oral Health
#996
of 1,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,407
of 326,713 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Oral Health
#24
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,472 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,713 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.