Volume 11, Issue 3 (9-2022)
JCHR 2022, 11(3): 150-157 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Karimiankakolaki Z, Anoosheh V S, Aliakbari F. Readability and Suitability Evaluation of Educational Media Regarding Men's Secondhand Smoke on Pregnant Wives. JCHR 2022; 11 (3) :150-157
URL: http://jhr.ssu.ac.ir/article-1-740-en.html
URL: http://jhr.ssu.ac.ir/article-1-740-en.html
1- PhD Health Education and Promotion, Department of Health, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
2- PhD student in ergonomics, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
3- Community-Oriented Nursing Midwifery Research Center, Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Shahrekord, Iran , aliakbarifa@gmail.com
2- PhD student in ergonomics, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
3- Community-Oriented Nursing Midwifery Research Center, Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Shahrekord, Iran , aliakbarifa@gmail.com
Abstract: (973 Views)
Introduction: The tools for assessing the appropriateness of educational materials are measuring device. Suitability offers a systematic approach to objectively assessing the appropriateness of health information material for a specific audience. The present study is designed to evaluate the readability and suitability of educational media about regarding men's secondhand smoke (SHS) in the smoker men on their the exposure of pregnant wives.
Methods: This analytical cross sectional study was done from October to December 2018 in Isfahan, Iran. Participants were in two groups. The first group of educational media audience consisted of 20 smokers with a pregnant wife. The second group was 15 people from the panel of experts. Written educational media (pamphlets) were evaluated. The readability of the material was measured by “readability assessment of materials” (RAM) and suitability was retrieved through “suitability assessment materials” (SAM). The Gunning-Fog Index was used to assess the readability of the media and the cloze test was used to assess the educational level of the media. Descriptive indices were stated for all variables. The collected data were analyzed by SPSS18.
Results: The readability mean score of the educational material was 16.60±1.34 for pamphlet, which was acceptable (score>10, P <0.001). Results showed the percentage points SAM score for the pamphlet was 85%. The educational material for media was “excellent” on the SAM rating. The score of the Gunning-Fog index for pamphlets was 9.6 and equivalent to the third grade of guidance was obtained. According to the evaluation by cloze test, pamphlet learning was assessed as an independent training without the need for a teacher.
Conclusions: The printed materials were well-matched after evaluation by the RAM and the SAM checklist, the Gunning-Fog Index and the cloze test. They were consistent with the characteristics of smoker men.
Methods: This analytical cross sectional study was done from October to December 2018 in Isfahan, Iran. Participants were in two groups. The first group of educational media audience consisted of 20 smokers with a pregnant wife. The second group was 15 people from the panel of experts. Written educational media (pamphlets) were evaluated. The readability of the material was measured by “readability assessment of materials” (RAM) and suitability was retrieved through “suitability assessment materials” (SAM). The Gunning-Fog Index was used to assess the readability of the media and the cloze test was used to assess the educational level of the media. Descriptive indices were stated for all variables. The collected data were analyzed by SPSS18.
Results: The readability mean score of the educational material was 16.60±1.34 for pamphlet, which was acceptable (score>10, P <0.001). Results showed the percentage points SAM score for the pamphlet was 85%. The educational material for media was “excellent” on the SAM rating. The score of the Gunning-Fog index for pamphlets was 9.6 and equivalent to the third grade of guidance was obtained. According to the evaluation by cloze test, pamphlet learning was assessed as an independent training without the need for a teacher.
Conclusions: The printed materials were well-matched after evaluation by the RAM and the SAM checklist, the Gunning-Fog Index and the cloze test. They were consistent with the characteristics of smoker men.
Review: Research |
Subject:
Health education
Received: 2021/02/19 | Accepted: 2022/09/19 | Published: 2022/10/19
Received: 2021/02/19 | Accepted: 2022/09/19 | Published: 2022/10/19
References
1. WHO. Secondhand Smoke (SHS) Facts. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/ fact_sheets/ secondhand_smoke/general_facts/ 2013 [
2. WHO. Tobacco Free Initiative (TFI) Second-hand tobacco smoke. Secondary Tobacco Free Initiative (TFI) Second-hand tobacco smoke. Available at: http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/secondhand_smoke/en/ 2015 [
3. Öberg M, Jaakkola MS, Woodward A, Peruga A, Prüss-Ustün A. Worldwide burden of disease from exposure to second-hand smoke: a retrospective analysis of data from 192 countries. The Lancet. 2011;377(9760):139-46. [DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61388-8]
4. WHO. Worldwide burden of disease from exposure to second-hand smoke. Available at: http://www.who.int/ quantifying_ehimpacts/publications/shsarticle2010/en/. 2011 [
5. Zhang L, Hsia J, Tu X, Xia Y, Zhang L, Bi Z, et al. Peer Reviewed: Exposure to Secondhand Tobacco Smoke and Interventions Among Pregnant Women in China: A Systematic Review. Preventing chronic disease. 2015;12(35):1-11. [DOI:10.5888/pcd12.140377]
6. Baheiraei A, Faghihi RS, Mirmohammad AM, Kazem NA. Predictors of home smoking ban in households in pregnant women. Payesh. 2012;11(4):511-17.
7. MazloomyMahmoodabad SS, Karimiankakolaki Z, Kazemi A, Mohammadi NK, Fallahzadeh H. Exposure to secondhand smoke in Iranian pregnant women at home and the related factors. Tobacco Prevention and Cessation. 2019;5(7):1-9. [DOI:10.18332/tpc/104435]
8. Alemán A, Morello P, Colomar M, Llambi L, Berrueta M, Gibbons L, et al. Brief Counseling on Secondhand Smoke Exposure in Pregnant Women in Argentina and Uruguay. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2016;14(1):28. [DOI:10.3390/ijerph14010028]
9. Alghamdi AS, Jokhadar HF, Alghamdi IM, Abdullah S, Alsohibani OJA, Wahabi HA. Socioeconomic Determinants of Exposure to Secondhand Smoke Among Pregnant Women. International Journal Of Womens Health And Reproduction Sciences. 2016;4(2):59-63. [DOI:10.15296/ijwhr.2016.14]
10. Chi Y-C, Sha F, Yip PS, Chen J-L, Chen Y-Y. Randomized comparison of group versus individual educational interventions for pregnant women to reduce their secondhand smoke exposure. Medicine. 2016;95(40):1-7. [DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000005072]
11. Goel P, Radotra A, Singh I, Aggarwal A, Dua D. Effects of passive smoking on outcome in pregnancy. Journal of postgraduate medicine. 2004;50(1):12.
12. Mojibyan M, Karimi M, Bidaki R, Rafiee P, Zare A. Exposure to second-hand smoke during pregnancy and preterm delivery. International journal of high risk behaviors & addiction. 2013;1(4):149. [DOI:10.5812/ijhrba.7630]
13. Amasha HA, Jaradeh MS. Effect of active and passive smoking during pregnancy on its outcomes. 2014;6(2):335-52.
14. WHO. World Health Organization. Gender, Health, Tobacco and Equity. Available at: http://www.who.int/ tobacco/publications/gender/gender_tobacco_2010.pdf 2011 [
15. Kazemi A, Ramezanzadeh F, NasrEsfahani MH, Saboor-Yaraghi AA, Nejat S, Rahimi-Foroshani A. Impact of environmental tobacco smoke exposure in women on oxidative stress in the antral follicle and assisted reproduction outcomes. Journal of research in medical sciences: the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. 2013;18(8):688.
16. Sarraf-Zadegan N, Boshtam M, Shahrokhi S, Naderi GA, Asgary S, Shahparian M, et al. Tobacco use among Iranian men, women and adolescents. European journal of public health. 2004;14(1):76-8. [DOI:10.1093/eurpub/14.1.76]
17. Nichter M, Padmajam S, Nichter M, Sairu P, Aswathy S, Mini G, et al. Developing a smoke free homes initiative in Kerala, India. BMC public health. 2015;15(1):480. [DOI:10.1186/s12889-015-1815-1]
18. Karimiankakolaki Z, MazloomyMahmoodabad SS, Kazemi A, Fallahzadeh H. Designing an educational intervention on second-hand smoke in smoker men on the exposure of pregnant wives: a protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Reproductive Health. 2019;16(11):1-5. [DOI:10.1186/s12978-019-0673-1]
19. Fazlallahi S, Maleki Tavana M. Content analysis methodology with emphasis on readability techniques and determining the coefficient of conflict of texts. Research journal. 2010;2(1):71-94.
20. Bahariniya S, Ezatiasar M, Madadizadeh F. A Brief Review of the Types of Validity and Reliability of scales in Medical Research. Journal of Community Health Research. 2021 Mar 10;10(2):100-2. [DOI:10.18502/jchr.v10i2.6582]
21. Sadeghi R, MazloomyMahmoodabad SS, Fallahzadeh H, Rezaeian M, Bidaki R, Khanjani N. Readability and Suitability Assessment of Adolescent Education Material in Preventing Hookah Smoking. International Journal of High Risk Behaviors and Addiction. 2019;8(1):e83117. [DOI:10.5812/ijhrba.83117]
22. Gunning R. The Technique of ClearWriting. 1952;36-37.
23. Christanti V, Naga DS, Benedicta C. Measuring Reading Difficulty Using Lexile Framework And Gunning Fog Index. Teknik dan Ilmu Komputer. 2017;6(22).
24. Hashemi M, Zangiabadi A, Shahdadi H, Sadeghi R. Using BASNEF Model: The Effect of an Educational Program on choice the mode of delivery in pregnant women in Sirjan, Iran. Transylvanian Review. 2017;1(4).
25. Okuhara T, Ishikawa H, Okada H, Kiuchi T. Readability, suitability and health content assessment of cancer screening announcements in municipal newspapers in Japan. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(15):6719-27. [DOI:10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.15.6719]
26. Walsh TM, Volsko TA. Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respiratory care. 2008;53(10):1310-5.
27. Garnweidner-Holme LM, Dolvik S, Frisvold C, Mosdøl A. Suitability assessment of printed dietary guidelines for pregnant women and parents of infants and toddlers from 7 European countries. Journal of nutrition education and behavior. 2016;48(2):146-51. e1. [DOI:10.1016/j.jneb.2015.10.004]
28. Finnie RK, Felder TM, Linder SK, Mullen PD. Beyond reading level: a systematic review of the suitability of cancer education print and web-based materials. Journal of Cancer Education. 2010;25(4):497-505. [DOI:10.1007/s13187-010-0075-0]
29. Vallance JK, Taylor LM, Lavallee C. Suitability and readability assessment of educational print resources related to physical activity: Implications and recommendations for practice. Patient Education and Counseling. 2008;72(2):342-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2008.03.010]
30. Kher A, Johnson S, Griffith R. Readability assessment of online patient education material on congestive heart failure. Advances in preventive medicine. 2017;2017(Article ID 9780317):1-8. [DOI:10.1155/2017/9780317]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. |
