Diabetes in the News: Readability Analysis of Malaysian Diabetes Corpus
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Readability and Readability Formulas
1.2. Previous Readability Studies on Health-Related Materials
2. Methodology
2.1. Selection of Articles
2.2. Selection of Best Methods to Calculate the Articles’ Readability
2.3. Feature Analysis of the Three Best and Worst Articles for Readability
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Readability of the Articles
3.2. Patterns of the Readability of the Articles
3.3. Features of the Best and Worst Samples for Readability
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ministry of Health Malaysia. National Health and Morbidity Survey (NHMS). Non-Communicable Disease, Healthcare Demand, and Health Literacy: Key Findings; Ministry of Health Malaysia: Putrajaya, Malaysia, 2020.
- Ganasegeran, K.; Hor, C.P.; Jamil, M.F.A.; Loh, H.C.; Noor, J.M.; Hamid, N.A.; Suppiah, P.D.; Manaf, M.R.A.; Ch’Ng, A.S.H.; Looi, I. A Systematic Review of the Economic Burden of Type 2 Diabetes in Malaysia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Albright, J.; de Guzman, C.; Acebo, P.; Paiva, D.; Faulkner, M.; Swanson, J. Readability of patient education materials: Implications for clinical practice. Appl. Nurs. Res. 1996, 9, 139–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caruso, R.; Magon, A.; Baroni, I.; Dellafiore, F.; Arrigoni, C.; Pittella, F.; Ausili, D. Health literacy in type 2 diabetes patients: A systematic review of systematic reviews. Acta Diabetol. 2018, 55, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, C.; Wang, D.; Liu, C.; Jiang, J.; Wang, X.; Chen, H.; Ju, X.; Zhang, X. What is the meaning of health literacy? A systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Fam. Med. Community Health 2020, 8, e000351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kindig, D.A.; Panzer, A.M.; Nielsen-Bohlman, L. Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion; Institute of Medicine, Board on Neuroscience and Behavioral Health, Committee on Health Literacy, National Academies Press (US): Washington, DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Jaafar, N.; Perialathan, K.; Krishnan, M.; Juatan, N.; Ahmad, M.; Mien, T.Y.S.; Salleh, K.; Isa, A.; Mohamed, S.; Hanit, N.; et al. Malaysian Health Literacy: Scorecard Performance from a National Survey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- WHO. Shanghai declaration on promoting health in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Health Promot. Int. 2017, 32, 7–8. [Google Scholar]
- Abdullah, A.; Liew, S.M.; Salim, H.S.; Ng, C.J.; Chinna, K. Health literacy research in Malaysia: A scoping review. Sains Malays. 2020, 49, 1021–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dale, E.; Chall, J.S. A formula for predicting readability: Instructions. Educ. Res. Bull. 1948, 27, 37–54. [Google Scholar]
- Mcinnes, N.; Haglund, B.J.A. Readability of online health information: Implications for health literacy. Inform. Health Soc. Care 2011, 36, 173–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dubay, W.H. The Principles of Readability A brief introduction to readability research. Impact Inf. 2004, 949, 1–72. [Google Scholar]
- Overland, J.E.; Hoskins, P.L.; McGill, M.J.; Yue, D.K. Low literacy: A problem in diabetes education. Diabet. Med. 1993, 10, 847–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Aguilera, C.; Pérez, M.A.; Alonso Palacio, L.M. La legibilidad de los materiales educativos sobre la diabetes: Implicaciones para la educación de pacientes con materiales escritos. Rev. Salud Uninorte 2010, 26, 12–26. [Google Scholar]
- McCaw, B.A.; McGlade, K.J.; McElnay, J.C. Online health information—What the newspapers tell their readers: A systematic content analysis. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bernard, S.; Cooke, T.; Cole, T.; Hachani, L.; Bernard, J. Quality and readability of online information about type 2 diabetes and nutrition. J. Am. Acad. PAs 2018, 31, 41–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, Y.-R.; Choi, K.-W. Readability and suitability evaluation of educational materials on diabetes mellitus. Korean J. Health Serv. Manag. 2014, 8, 161–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Azami, M.; Moazami, M. Evaluation of Quality and Readability of Health Information of Diabetes Websites Using DISCERN Checklist and GUNNING Index. J. Biochem. Technol. 2018, 9, 98–107. [Google Scholar]
- Rodriguez, J.A.; Singh, K. The Spanish availability and readability of diabetes apps. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 2018, 12, 719–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, K.; Buchanan, P.; McDonald, P. How easy is it for a lay audience to read medical journals? A survey of the readability scores of a sample of research papers on diabetes. Lancet 2017, 390, S82. [Google Scholar]
- Lim, I. English proficiency survey puts Malaysia as “high” but still below Singapore. Malay Mail. 2019. Available online: https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2019/12/06/english-proficiency-survey-puts-malaysia-as-high-but-still-below-singapore/1816644 (accessed on 29 May 2022).
- Kincaid, J.P.; Fishburne, R.P., Jr.; Rogers, R.L.; Chissom, B.S. Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel; Naval Technical Training Command Millington TN Research Branch: Millington, TN, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Mc Laughlin, G.H. SMOG grading-a new readability formula. J. Read. 1969, 12, 639–646. [Google Scholar]
- Fitzsimmons, P.R.; Michael, B.D.; Hulley, J.L.; Scott, G.O. A readability assessment of online Parkinson’s disease information. J. R. Coll. Physicians Edinb. 2010, 40, 292–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McHugh, M.L. Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochem. Med. 2012, 22, 276–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flaounas, I.; Ali, O.; Lansdall-Welfare, T.; de Bie, T.; Mosdell, N.; Lewis, J.; Cristianini, N. Research methods in the age of digital journalism: Massive-scale automated analysis of news-content—Topics, style and gender. Digit. J. 2013, 1, 102–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Hayre, J. Gobbledygook Has Gotta Go; U.S. Bureau of Land Management: Washington, DC, USA, 1966.
Score (FKRE) | School Level (FKGL) | Notes |
---|---|---|
100.00–90.00 | 5th grade | Very easy to read. Easily understood by an average 11-year-old student. |
90.0–80.0 | 6th grade | Easy to read. Conversational English for consumers. |
80.0–70.0 | 7th grade | Fairly easy to read. |
70.0–60.0 | 8th and 9th grade | Plain English. Easily understood by 13–15-year-old students. |
60.0–50.0 | From 10th to 12th grade | Fairly difficult to read. |
50.0–30.0 | College | Difficult to read. |
30.0–10.0 | College graduate | Very difficult to read. Best understood by university graduates. |
10.0–0.0 | Professional | Extremely difficult to read. Best understood by university graduates. |
Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease | |
---|---|
Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease | 1 |
Flesch Kincaid Grade Level | −0.926910804 |
Gunning Fog Score | −0.83681993 |
SMOG Index | −0.917094037 |
Coleman Liau Index | −0.793461497 |
ARI | −0.845043078 |
Year | Articles | Tokens (Words) | Token Types |
---|---|---|---|
2013 | 13 | 11,819 | 2300 |
2014 | 14 | 12,745 | 2767 |
2015 | 12 | 10,642 | 2191 |
2016 | 10 | 5514 | 1453 |
2017 | 8 | 5216 | 1492 |
2018 | 17 | 10,833 | 2350 |
Total | 74 | 56,769 | 6122 (unique words) |
Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease | |
---|---|
Mean | 49.67 |
Standard error | 1.04 |
Median | 50.15 |
Mode | 66.90 |
Standard deviation | 8.92 |
Sample Variance | 79.58 |
Kurtosis | −0.19 |
Skewness | 0.01 |
Range | 42.90 |
Minimum | 25.60 |
Maximum | 68.50 |
Sum | 3675.70 |
Count | 74 |
Confidence level (95.0%) | 2.07 |
Best Articles | |
---|---|
Name | Features |
Best 1 | Reported and direct speech Subject: dieticians Text features: conversational, simple active sentences |
Best 2 | Letter to the editor Subject: none, citizen writer Text features: simple active sentences |
Best 3 | Reported and direct speech Subject: local actress Text features: conversational, simple active sentences |
Worst Articles | |
Name | Features |
Worst 1 | Research report Subject: reporting of DAWN2 research findings Text features: dense passive sentences, numeric values, jargons |
Worst 2 | Reported and direct speech Subject: NGOs and medical doctors Text features: conversational, explanatory, lengthy sentences, jargons |
Worst 3 | Reported and direct speech Subject: nutritionist Text features: passive sentences mixed with direct speech reporting, high density of chemical names and numbers |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hamat, A.; Jaludin, A.; Mohd-Dom, T.N.; Rani, H.; Jamil, N.A.; Abdul Aziz, A.F. Diabetes in the News: Readability Analysis of Malaysian Diabetes Corpus. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6802. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116802
Hamat A, Jaludin A, Mohd-Dom TN, Rani H, Jamil NA, Abdul Aziz AF. Diabetes in the News: Readability Analysis of Malaysian Diabetes Corpus. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(11):6802. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116802
Chicago/Turabian StyleHamat, Afendi, Azhar Jaludin, Tuti Ningseh Mohd-Dom, Haslina Rani, Nor Aini Jamil, and Aznida Firzah Abdul Aziz. 2022. "Diabetes in the News: Readability Analysis of Malaysian Diabetes Corpus" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 11: 6802. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116802