Assessing the readability of diabetes information provided by the Turkish Ministry of Health

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study is to analyze the readability levels of diabetes-related texts available on the official website of the General Directorate of Public Health of the Turkish Ministry of Health, and to use the findings to guide the preparation of future informational texts. Methods: This research is a descriptive study based on document analysis, aiming to determine the readability of diabetes-related texts developed by the Turkish Ministry of Health. The data was obtained from publicly accessible educational texts published on the General Directorate of Public Health’s website (Cited 2024, June 20. Available from: https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/tr/diyabet). The Ateşman readability formula was used to evaluate the readability levels of the texts. Results: A total of 32 documents under four main headings were examined using the Ateşman formula, and the average readability score of the texts was found to be 61.69±10.15. Based on their readability levels, 28.1% texts were classified as ‘Easy’, 56.2% as ‘Moderately Difficult’, and 15.6% as ‘Difficult’. Among the 13 texts in the Type 1 Diabetes group, 46.1% were ‘Easy’ and 53.8% were ‘Moderately Difficult’. In the Type 2 Diabetes group, 17.6% were ‘Easy’, 64.7% were ‘Moderately Difficult’, and 17.6% were ‘Difficult’. Conclusion: The readability levels of the analyzed texts in our study are generally in the “Moderately Difficult” category; however, some texts were found to be in the “Difficult” readability level. The readability and understandability of educational materials prepared to improve public health are of great importance. Regular review and optimization of the readability levels of educational materials will enhance public health literacy, contributing to the development of healthier individuals and a healthier society.

Keywords

• Diabetes mellitus
• readability
• public health education
• ateşman readability index
• health information

References

1. Murray E, Lo B, Pollack L, et al. The impact of health information on the Internet on health care and the physician-patient relationship: national U.S. survey among 1.050 U.S. physicians. J Med Internet Res. 2003;5(3):e17.
2. Taşdemir İ. İnternet ortamındaki dişeti hastalığı ile ilgili bilgilerin okunabilirlik analizi. Selcuk Dent J. 2023;10(1):89-93.
3. Muslu M. Yüksel Eİ. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Sağlık Bakanlığı tarafından geliştirilmiş beslenme ile ilgili broşürlerin okunabilirlik düzeyinin belirlenmesi. Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi. 2023;1(2):81-91.
4. Usta Atmaca H, Akbas F, Şak T, Şak D, Acar S, Niyazioglu M. Diyabetik hastalarda hastalık bilinç düzeyi ve farkındalık. İstanbul Med J. 2015;16(3):101-114.
5. Durukan E. Metinlerin okunabilirlik düzeyleri ile öğrencilerin okuma becerileri arsındaki ilişki. Ana Dili Eğitimi Derg. 2014; 2(3):68-76.
6. Çoban A. Okunabilirlik kavramına yönelik bir derleme çalışması. Dil ve Edebiyat Eğitimi Derg. 2014;(9):96-111.
7. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Applied Psychol. 1948;32(3): 221-233.
8. Ateşman E. Measuring readability in Turkish. AU Tömer Lang J. 1997;2(58):71-74.

9. Harreiter J, Roden M. Diabetes mellitus–Definition, klassifikation diagnose screening und prävention (Update 2019) [Diabetes mellitus-Definition, classification, diagnosis, screening, and prevention (Update 2019)]. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2019;131(Suppl 1):6-15.
10. Diyabet 2020-2030 vizyon ve hedefler. ulusal diyabet stratejisi 10. yıl sonuç dökümanı 2023. Türkiye Diyabet Vakfı (2023)
11. Han A, Carayannopoulos AG. Readability of patient education materials in physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R): a comparative cross-sectional study. PM R. 2020;12(4):368-373.
12. Tolu S, Basım P. A New perspective on readability and content assessment of patient information texts published on the internet sites on lymphedema. J Current Researches on Health Sector. 2018;8(2):303-314.
13. Türkyılmaz AS, Eryurt MA, Akadlı Ergöçmen B, et al. 2013 Türkiye nüfus ve sağlık araştırması. Elma teknik basım matbaacılık. Ankara, 2014
14. Klugman J. Human development report 2011. Sustainability and equity: a better future for all. Sustainability and equity: a better future for all (November 2. 2011) UNDP-HDRO Human Development Reports.
15. Murphy J, Vaughn J, Gelber K, Geller A, Zakowski M. Readability, content, quality and accuracy assessment of internet-based patient education materials relating to labor analgesia. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2019;39:82-87.
16. Dale E, Chall JS. The concept of readability. Elementary English. 1949;26(1):19-26
17. Saldırım HB, Eren M, Kurtuluş N, Kırlaroğlu SN, Şerbetçioğlu MB. Tinnitus ile ilgili çevrim içi hasta bilgilendirme materyallerinin okunabilirliğinin değerlendirilmesi. Balkan Health Sci J. 2023; 2(1):1-6.
18. Sezin RK, Biçen ŞN. Readability and quality levels of online patient information texts regarding hoarseness of voice. J Ear Nose and Throat Head Neck Surgery. 2023;31(3):170-178.
19. Tahir E, Kent AE. Readability analysis of internet-based patient information regarding dizziness. KBB-Forum. 2021;20(2):163-170.
20. Akbulut AS. İnternet ortamındaki şeffaf plak tedavisi ile ilgili bilgilerin okunabilirlik analizi. NEU Dent J. 2022;4(1):7-11.