ReviewJournal of pharmacy practice2026
Evaluation of Readability of Educational Materials for Coronary Artery Disease and the Impact of Health Literacy on Medication Adherence and Health Outcomes.
Review in Journal of pharmacy practice, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a major problem in the United States, impacting 5% of American adults. Ensuring medication adherence is of vital importance, as lower adherence to cardiovascular medications is associated with higher risk of cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with CAD. Many adults in the United States have poor health literacy, contributing to difficulty comprehending their conditions and potentially the importance of medication adherence. While the EPA recommended grade level for patient education materials (PEMs) is below an eighth grade level, most are written at a much higher level than this, which may cause disparity in patients' level of understanding. The purpose of our review was to benchmark the reading levels of several widely used PEMs to determine if they fell within the recommended guidelines and to discuss the potential role of pharmacists in medication education and adherence. Twenty PEMs relevant to CAD were gathered and their readability was analyzed using the software on Microsoft Word to determine the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) of each PEM. It was determined that 85% of the PEMs ranked higher than the current recommendation, indicating that work needs to be done to ensure adequate patient understanding and adherence. Through pharmacist involvement, industry-wide awareness, and collaborative efforts, adherence to the readability standard can be achieved, improving health outcomes and medication adherence in patients with CAD.
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.