2020
DOI: 10.1111/hsc.13192
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Help or hinder? An assessment of the accessibility, usability, reliability and readability of disability funding website information for Australian mental health consumers

Abstract: This study aimed to assess the accessibility, usability, reliability and readability of those websites most likely encountered by Australian mental health consumers when using the internet to find information regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Websites were systematically identified with 127 deemed relevant for assessment in 2018. The LIDA instrument, the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level were used to evaluate the quality of information provided to mental hea… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Key assessment criteria of PEMAT include health information understandability, relevance, and actionability [8,9]. Much of the current research has focused on exploring these assessment dimensions separately using long-standing readability tools [10][11][12][13] or machine learning algorithms of natural language features [14][15][16] using features such as general medical vocabularies, consumer medical vocabulary, natural language features such as a part of speech features [17][18][19], and other metadata [20]. Furthermore, many of these data-intensive and data-driven studies did not consider insights from research fields directly relevant to health educational resource development and evaluation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Key assessment criteria of PEMAT include health information understandability, relevance, and actionability [8,9]. Much of the current research has focused on exploring these assessment dimensions separately using long-standing readability tools [10][11][12][13] or machine learning algorithms of natural language features [14][15][16] using features such as general medical vocabularies, consumer medical vocabulary, natural language features such as a part of speech features [17][18][19], and other metadata [20]. Furthermore, many of these data-intensive and data-driven studies did not consider insights from research fields directly relevant to health educational resource development and evaluation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Effective multilingual communication of authoritative health information plays an important role in helping to reduce health disparities, inequalities in developed and developing countries. Currently, the evaluation of the quality of public-oriented health information focused on readability assessment [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. In 2013, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services developed the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) which extended the evaluation of the quality of user-oriented health information from readability, understandability to include Int.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To be effective, the design of messages and messaging (i.e., promotion material) should be culturally responsive to the diverse ways of obtaining, processing, and understanding information (Natkunam et al, 2020;Ross & Ross, 2021). Yet, large-scale evaluations of PA and health-related digital messaging have revealed materials that are largely inaccessible for diverse populations due to unsuitable required reading grade levels , non-compliance with disability access standards for digital media, including issues with font style, content layout, and lack of alternative text for images (Shaw 2017;Visser et al, 2021;Disability Rights Commission, 2004), and poor or missing representation of persons with disabilities (Bruning et al 2020;Comella et al, 2019;Mitchell et al, 2019).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(McManus, 2022). Thus, intentional educational efforts to prepare professionals to apply techniques for health literacy promotion and recognize the value of this practice in support of health equity, is needed (May et al, 2022;Visser et al, 2021). Despite this call to action, there has been limited improvement over the past quarter century in the accessibility of health promotion materials (Cardinal & Sachs, 1992;Thomas & Cardinal, 2020).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation