“…The leaflets must be clear and concise in their explanations and must be available in the user’s language and adapted to their understanding ( Clausen et al, 2016 ; Khodambashi et al, 2017 ). However, a considerable proportion of the leaflets evaluated in these articles did not meet these characteristics as they were not understood by the general public ( Rajasundaram et al, 2006 ; Symonds et al, 2011 ; Brooke et al, 2013 ; Spinillo, 2014 ; Bennin and Rother, 2015 ; Alaqeel and al Obaidi, 2017 ; Haller et al, 2019 ), nor did they meet the parameters of utility ( Sukkari et al, 2012 ), readability ( Kasesnik and Kline, 2011 ), adaptation to the educational level of the target population ( Cronin et al, 2011 ), or use of non-medical terminology ( Hirsh et al, 2009 ; Bennin and Rother, 2015 ). Participants in other studies confirmed that the leaflets were clear, legible ( Gustafsson et al, 2005 ; Williamson and Martin, 2010 ; Potter et al, 2014 ), and useful ( Edwards et al, 2013 ), even though the participants showed low scores in a test on knowledge acquired from the PILs ( Alaqeel and al Obaidi, 2017 ).…”