However, further changes were identified by participants that cou

However, further changes were identified by participants that could make it more accommodating for low literacy groups: ‘There were a couple of words in it that I thought might need thinking about…‘discuss’, I wonder whether ‘talk about’ would be more appropriate?’ (AL, 55 years, female, degree level education). Changes were also made to the spacing between and within lines to improve readability. As demonstrated in Table 2, nearly all statements were answered correctly by at least 80% of the participants. However, the statement on the meaning of an abnormal result remained problematic (8. ‘People with an abnormal result

always have cancer’ [F]). At a participant level, a mean of 7.1 out of 8 statements were answered correctly (range = 4–8). Changes to the layout selleck inhibitor of the leaflet were made in response to difficulties with remembering all of the information that they have just read, ‘I think it’s ok, but it’s remembering what you read. If you read something and don’t remember, it doesn’t do you any benefit does it?’ (DW, 52 years, female, no formal qualifications). Changes included placing boxes around text that related to each sub-heading, reducing the number

of bullet points on the final page, changing the colour of the background and increasing the size of the font on the front page to increase the readability of the text for individuals with eyesight difficulties (‘It’s very clear. Maybe I would say, it could be done in more bigger letters, you know if somebody’s old or something’ (SF, 51 years, female, no formal qualifications)). These changes were particularly Antiinfection Compound Library chemical structure apparent on the final page which assisted participants

when searching for the correct answer to the statement that did not meet the threshold. The text relating to this statement was altered: ‘For most people, the Atezolizumab in vivo follow-up test will show there is no bowel cancer’ in an attempt to improve comprehension. Participants reported being confused about the age of eligibility for screening: ‘That’s all clear and it’s explained further, all very simple. But this I couldn’t get [age extension]. That’s like a random statement. It’s not really backed up or [explained] why’ (VY, 45 years, male, advanced high school qualifications). Participants also wanted reassurance that the test was simple, as some felt that it might be complicated and that people may be less likely to participate as a result. This resulted in changes to the text concerning the age that people are invited to screening, as well as an additional sentence highlighting ‘The FOB test is easy to do’. The title of the booklet (‘A two minute guide’) was changed as this may have been perceived as intimidating by less literate and slower readers: ‘This is meant to be a two minute guide. Well people read at their own pace and you know they might think well, oh.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>