Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T16:32:49.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Evaluation of the Literacy Demands of Online Natural Disaster Preparedness Materials for Families

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2019

Marvin So Open the ORCID record for Marvin So [Opens in a new window] ,
Jessica L. Franks ,
Robyn A. Cree  and
Rebecca T. Leeb
Marvin So*
Affiliation:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Atlanta, GA University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Medical School, Minneapolis, MN
Jessica L. Franks
Affiliation:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Atlanta, GA
Robyn A. Cree
Affiliation:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Atlanta, GA Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Epidemic Intelligence Service, Atlanta, GA
Rebecca T. Leeb
Affiliation:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Atlanta, GA
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to Marvin So, University of Minnesota Medical School, 420 Delaware Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55454 (e-mail: so000012@umn.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

Natural disasters are becoming increasingly common, but it is unclear whether families can comprehend and use available resources to prepare for such emergencies. The objective of this study was to evaluate the literacy demands of risk communication materials on natural disasters for US families with children.

Methods:

In January 2018, we assessed 386 online self-directed learning resources related to emergency preparedness for natural disasters using 5 literacy assessment tools. Assessment scores were compared by information source, audience type, and disaster type.

Results:

One-in-three websites represented government institutions, and 3/4 were written for a general audience. Nearly 1-in-5 websites did not specify a disaster type. Assessment scores suggest a mismatch between the general population’s literacy levels and literacy demands of materials in the areas of readability, complexity, suitability, web usability, and overall audience appropriateness. Materials required more years of education beyond the grade level recommended by prominent health organizations. Resources for caregivers of children generally and children with special health care needs possessed lower literacy demands than materials overall, for most assessment tools.

Conclusions:

Risk communication and public health agencies could better align the literacy demands of emergency preparedness materials with the literacy capabilities of the general public.

Keywords

childrendisaster literacyemergency preparednessnatural disastersrisk communication
Type
Original Research
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , August 2020 , pp. 449 - 458
Copyright
© 2019 Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction: making development sustainable: the future of disaster risk management. Geneva, Switzerland; 2015. https://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2015/en/gar-pdf/GAR2015_EN.pdf. Accessed January 3, 2018.Google Scholar
American Academy of Pediatrics Disaster Preparedness Advisory Council, Committee on Pediatric Emergency Medicine. Ensuring the health of children in disasters. Pediatrics. 2015;136(5):e1407-e1417. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-3112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Preparedness in America: research insights to increase individual, organizational, and community action. Washington, DC; 2014. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1409000888026-1e8abc820153a6c8cde24ce42c16e857/20140825_Preparedness_in_America_August_2014_Update_508.pdf. Accessed January 24, 2019.Google Scholar
Dziuban, EJ, Peacock, G, Frogel, M. A child’s health is the public’s health: progress and gaps in addressing pediatric needs in public health emergencies. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(S2):S134-S137. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.303950.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chung, S, Gardner, AH, Schonfeld, DJ, et al. Addressing children’s needs in disasters: a regional pediatric tabletop exercise. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2018;12(5): 582-586. doi: 10.1017/dmp.2017.137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peek, L, Abramson, DM, Cox, RS, et al. Children and disasters. In: Rodríguez, H, Donner, W, Trainor, JE, eds. Handbook of Disaster Research. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2018:243-262. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-63254-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hipper, TJ, Davis, R, Massey, PM, et al. The disaster information needs of families of children with special healthcare needs: a scoping review. Heal Secur. 2018;16(3):178-192. doi: 10.1089/hs.2018.0007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plantin, L, Daneback, K. Parenthood, information and support on the internet. A literature review of research on parents and professionals online. BMC Fam Pract. 2009;10(1):34. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-10-34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savoia, E, Lin, L, Viswanath, K. Communications in public health emergency preparedness: a systematic review of the literature. Biosecur Bioterror. 2013;11(3):170-184. doi: 10.1089/bsp.2013.0038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pleasant, A, Rudd, RE, O’Leary, C, et al. Considerations for a new definition of health literacy: discussion paper. Washington, DC: National Academy of Medicine; 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, X, Hawkins, A, Rowel, R. An assessment of the cultural appropriateness of emergency preparedness communication for low income minorities. J Homel Secur Emerg Manag. 2007;4(3). doi: 10.2202/1547-7355.1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, B, Felter, E, Downes, A, Trauth, J. Communicating public health preparedness information to pregnant and postpartum women: an assessment of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention web pages. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2015;9(02):134-137. doi: 10.1017/dmp.2015.2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neuhauser, L, Ivey, SL, Huang, D, et al. Availability and readability of emergency preparedness materials for deaf and hard-of-hearing and older adult populations: issues and assessments. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e55614. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055614.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryan, MT, Rohrbeck, CA, Wirtz, PW. The importance of self-efficacy in parental emergency preparedness: a moderated mediation model. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2018;12(3):345-351. doi: 10.1017/dmp.2017.80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abrams, MA, Klass, P, Dreyer, BP. Health literacy and children: recommendations for action. Pediatrics. 2009;124(Suppl 3):S327-S331. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-1162I.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaphingst, KA, Kreuter, MW, Casey, C, et al. Health Literacy Index: development, reliability, and validity of a new tool for evaluating the health literacy demands of health information materials. J Health Commun. 2012;17(Suppl 3):203-221. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2012.712612.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, LM, Haun, JN, Peterson, L. A proposed disaster literacy model. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2014;8(03):267-275. doi: 10.1017/dmp.2014.43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitten, P, Nazione, S, Lauckner, C. Tools for assessing the quality and accessibility of online health information: initial testing among breast cancer websites. Informatics Heal Soc Care. 2013;38(4):366-381. doi: 10.3109/17538157.2013.812644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morahan-Martin, JM. How Internet users find, evaluate, and use online health information: a cross-cultural review. CyberPsychology Behav. 2004;7(5):497-510. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2004.7.497.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dhillon, G, Coss, D, Hackney, R. Interpreting the role of disruptive technologies in e-businesses. Logist Inf Manag. 2001;14(1/2):163-171. doi: 10.1108/09576050110363167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kincaid, J, Fishburne, RJ, Rogers, R, Chissom, B. Research Branch Report 8-75: Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel. Millington, TN; 1975. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a006655.pdf. Accessed March 14, 2018.Google Scholar
Mosenthal, P, Kirsch, I. A new measure for assessing document complexity: the PMOSE/IKIRSCH document readability formula. J Adolesc Adult Lit. 1998;41(8):638-657. doi: 10.2307/40016961.Google Scholar
Doak, C, Doak, L, Root, J. Teaching patients with low literacy. JB Lippincott; 1996. https://www.popline.org/node/425267. Accessed March 14, 2018.Google Scholar
Hodes, RJ, Lindberg, DAB. Making your website senior friendly: a checklist. Washington, DC; 2002. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/checklist.pdf. Accessed March 14, 2018.Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC Clear Communication Index: a tool for developing and assessing CDC Public Communication Products User Guide. Atlanta, GA; 2014. https://www.cdc.gov/ccindex/pdf/clear-communication-user-guide.pdf. Accessed September 21, 2017.Google Scholar
Friedman, DB, Tanwar, M, Richter, JVE. Evaluation of online disaster and emergency preparedness resources. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2008;23(5):438-446.10.1017/S1049023X00006178CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, WA. Reliability of content analysis: the case of nominal scale coding. Public Opin Q. 1955;19(3):321. doi: 10.1086/266577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamini, Y, Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 1995;57:289-300. doi: 10.2307/2346101.Google Scholar
Olympia, RP, Rivera, R, Heverley, S, et al. Natural disasters and mass-casualty events affecting children and families: a description of emergency preparedness and the role of the primary care physician. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2010;49(7):686-698. doi: 10.1177/0009922810364657.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Capabilities: National Standards for State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Public Health. Atlanta, GA; 2018. https://www.cdc.gov/cpr/readiness/00_docs/CDC_PreparednesResponseCapabilities_October2018_Final_508.pdf. Accessed December 11, 2018.Google Scholar
Baur, C, Prue, C. The CDC Clear Communication Index is a new evidence-based tool to prepare and review health information. Health Promot Pract. 2014;15(5):629-637. doi: 10.1177/1524839914538969.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Center for Education Statistics. Adult literacy in America: a first look at the results of The National Adult Literacy Survey. Washington, DC; 2002. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2018.Google Scholar
National Institutes of Health. How to write easy-to-read health materials. Published 2017. https://medlineplus.gov/etr.html. Accessed December 11, 2018.Google Scholar
Weiss, BD. Health Literacy: A Manual for Clinicians. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association Foundation; 2008.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Quick guide to health literacy. Washington, DC; 2006. https://health.gov/communication/literacy/quickguide/Quickguide.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2018.Google Scholar
National Institutes of Health. Making health communication programs work. Washington, DC; 2013. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/cancerlibrary/pinkbook/page5. Accessed August 2, 2018.Google Scholar
Thomas, TL, Schrock, C, Friedman, DB. Providing health consumers with emergency information: a systematic review of research examining social media use during public crises. J Consum Health Internet. 2016;20(1–2):19-40. doi: 10.1080/15398285.2016.1142927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaspers, MWM. A comparison of usability methods for testing interactive health technologies: methodological aspects and empirical evidence. Int J Med Inform. 2009;78(5):340-353. doi: 10.1016/J.IJMEDINF.2008.10.002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savoia, E, Lin, L, Gamhewage, GM. A conceptual framework for the evaluation of emergency risk communications. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(S2):S208-S214. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.304040.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergeron, CD, Friedman, DB. Developing an evaluation tool for disaster risk messages. Disaster Prev Manag Int J. 2015;24(5):570-582. doi: 10.1108/DPM-11-2014-0224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

So et al. supplementary material

So et al. supplementary material 1

Download So et al. supplementary material(File)
File 26.7 KB