ArticleBritish journal of biomedical science2025
An Analysis of the Readability of Public-Facing Information Relating to Prevention of Infectious Diseases by Vaccination.
Article in British journal of biomedical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The readability of public-facing vaccine-related information is an important aspect of health literacy particularly regarding vaccine uptake. The aims of this study were to analyse the readability of such written literature and to provide recommendations, for improvement. Methods: Readability of vaccine-related information (n Results: Vaccine-related information for all sources had poor readability across all readability metrics with 90.8% and 94.6% not reaching the target FKGL (≤8) (mean 12 ± 3.2 sd) and FRE (≥60) (mean 34 ± 17 sd). Plain language summaries had improved readability, but did not reach reference targets. Scientific abstract and plain language scores for the CR were FRE (mean 25 ± 7.2 sd; median 25) versus (mean 37 ± 8.6 sd; median 36) p < 0.0001), respectively and for ERV FRE the scientific abstract (mean 18 ± 11 sd; median 17) versus the plain language score (mean 26 ± 11 sd; median 28) p = 0.002), respectively, indicating an improvement in readability scores for plain language summaries but again not reaching reference targets. Conclusion: The readability of public-facing vaccination materials is currently not optimum. The readability can be improved through the employment of readability calculators and ensuring, where possible, the use of mono-syllable words and less than fourteen words per sentence. The preparation of public-facing materials with improved readability scores will help aid in the promotion of health literacy and in turn promote vaccination uptake.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.