Volume 24, Issue 5 (September-October 2025)
Payesh 2025, 24(5): 733-742 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.MEDILAM.REC.1401.098
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Alimohammadi Z, Mirzaei A, Soury S, Naghizadeh M, Ghazanfari Z. Evaluation of readability and suitability of occupational safety and health posters. Payesh 2025; 24 (5) :733-742
URL: http://payeshjournal.ir/article-1-2431-en.html
URL: http://payeshjournal.ir/article-1-2431-en.html
Zeinab Alimohammadi1 
, Amin Mirzaei1 , Shiva Soury2 , Mohammadmehdi Naghizadeh3 , Zeinab Ghazanfari *4
, Amin Mirzaei1 , Shiva Soury2 , Mohammadmehdi Naghizadeh3 , Zeinab Ghazanfari *4
1- Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran
2- Department of Occupational Health, Faculty of Health, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran
3- Department of Occupational Health, NCD Research Center, Fasa University of Medical Sciences, Fesa, Iran
4- Health and Environment Research Center, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran
2- Department of Occupational Health, Faculty of Health, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran
3- Department of Occupational Health, NCD Research Center, Fasa University of Medical Sciences, Fesa, Iran
4- Health and Environment Research Center, Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran
Abstract: (26 Views)
Objective(s): Printed educational materials have long shown their usefulness as a cost-effective and effective media for health communication. These resources are effective when they are understandable to their audience. The present study was conducted to evaluate the readability and suitability of educational posters.
Methods: This was a descriptive study with content analysis approach. The readability and suitability of 125 educational posters designed by The Center of Research and Training for Occupational Safety and Health (CRTOSH) in 2022 were evaluated. The readability was measured using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and a self-designed readability assessment checklist, and suitability was measured using the Suitability Assessment Materials (SAM) tool. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 16 software.
Results: The mean readability, suitability and grade level of all posters were 26.91, 21.42 and 7.88, respectively. Also, calculating the average readability and suitability of single glance and stop and study posters separately showed that single glance posters have more readability and suitability and lower educational level than the stop and study posters. Only a limited number of posters were classified as superior (14.4%) in terms of suitability. Also, a significant proportion of posters were classified as superior in terms of the self-designed items on readability (68.8%), but in terms of educational level, (67.2%) of the posters were higher than the 6th grade as recommended.
Conclusion: The study showed that the suitability and readability of most of the occupational safety and health educational posters available on https://crtosh.mcls.gov.ir/fa/posterimeni are not acceptable. These educational posters can cause positive and safe behaviors if well designed. The findings suggest that educational materials should be prepared simple and understandable that may increase the likelihood of consumer perception and recall.
Methods: This was a descriptive study with content analysis approach. The readability and suitability of 125 educational posters designed by The Center of Research and Training for Occupational Safety and Health (CRTOSH) in 2022 were evaluated. The readability was measured using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and a self-designed readability assessment checklist, and suitability was measured using the Suitability Assessment Materials (SAM) tool. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 16 software.
Results: The mean readability, suitability and grade level of all posters were 26.91, 21.42 and 7.88, respectively. Also, calculating the average readability and suitability of single glance and stop and study posters separately showed that single glance posters have more readability and suitability and lower educational level than the stop and study posters. Only a limited number of posters were classified as superior (14.4%) in terms of suitability. Also, a significant proportion of posters were classified as superior in terms of the self-designed items on readability (68.8%), but in terms of educational level, (67.2%) of the posters were higher than the 6th grade as recommended.
Conclusion: The study showed that the suitability and readability of most of the occupational safety and health educational posters available on https://crtosh.mcls.gov.ir/fa/posterimeni are not acceptable. These educational posters can cause positive and safe behaviors if well designed. The findings suggest that educational materials should be prepared simple and understandable that may increase the likelihood of consumer perception and recall.
Keywords: Readability, Suitability, Occupational safety and health, Educational materials, Single glance posters, and Stop and study posters
type of study: Descriptive |
Subject:
Public Health
Received: 2024/08/5 | Accepted: 2024/10/29 | ePublished ahead of print: 2025/11/9 | Published: 2025/11/9
Received: 2024/08/5 | Accepted: 2024/10/29 | ePublished ahead of print: 2025/11/9 | Published: 2025/11/9
References
1. Oliveira SCd, Lopes MVdO, Fernandes AFC. Development and validation of an educational booklet for healthy eating during pregnancy. Revista Lation Americana De Enfermagem 2014;22:611-20 [DOI:10.1590/0104-1169.3313.2459]
2. Eaves ER, Nichter M, Howerter A, Floden L, Ritenbaugh C, Gordon JS, et al. Printed educational materials' impact on tobacco cessation brief Interventions in CAM Practice: Patient and Practitioner Experiences. Health Promotion Practice 2016;17:862-70 [DOI:10.1177/1524839916667024]
3. Azari Gh. Poster effect on theater audiences. Culture-Communication Studies 2013;3:60-135 [Persian]
4. Crawley L, Frazer K. Posters as assessment strategies: Focusing on service users. British Journal of Nursing 2015;24:830-2 [DOI:10.12968/bjon.2015.24.16.830]
5. Brahmandpour F. Guide to choosing media and methods of health education. 1st Edition, Arman Bratha: Tehran, 2012 [in Persian]
6. Green M, Byrne MH, Legard C, Chen E, Critchley A, Stainer B, et al. The effect of positive and negative poster messages on organ donor registration. Transplantation Proceedings 2020;52:2899-900 [DOI:10.1016/j.transproceed.2020.03.029]
7. Lawson A, Vaganay-Miller M. The effectiveness of a poster intervention on hand hygiene practice and compliance when using public restrooms in a university setting. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2019;16:5036 [DOI:10.3390/ijerph16245036]
8. Ahmadzadeh K, Khosravi A, Tahmasebi R. Assessing the readability of patient education materials about diabetes available in Shiraz health centers. Iranian Journal of Medical Education 2014;14:661-7 [Persian]
9. Morowatisharifabad M, Yoshany N, Sharma M, Bahri N, Jambarsang S. Readability and suitability assessment of educational materials in promoting the quality of life for postmenopausal women. Przeglad Menopauzalny 2020;19:80-9 [DOI:10.5114/pm.2020.97850]
10. Hoffmann T, Ladner Y. Assessing the suitability of written stroke materials: An evaluation of the interrater reliability of the suitability assessment of materials (SAM) checklist. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation 2012;19:417-22 [DOI:10.1310/tsr1905-417]
11. Papanas N, Georgiadis GS, Demetriou M, Lazarides MK, Maltezos E. Creating a successful poster:"beauty is truth, truth beauty". The International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds 2019;18:6-9 [DOI:10.1177/1534734619836018]
12. Oliffe M, Thompson E, Johnston J, Freeman D, Bagga H, Wong PK. Assessing the readability and patient comprehension of rheumatology medicine information sheets: a cross-sectional Health Literacy Study. BMJ Open 2019;9:e024582 [DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024582]
13. Sinyai C, MacArthur B, Roccotagliata T. Evaluating the readability and suitability of construction occupational safety and health materials designed for workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 2018;61:842-8 [DOI:10.1002/ajim.22901]
14. Rhee RL, Von Feldt JM, Schumacher HR, Merkel PA. Readability and suitability assessment of patient education materials in rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Care & Research 2013;65:1702-6 [DOI:10.1002/acr.22046]
15. Wang Q, Xie L, Wang L, Li X, Xu L, Chen P. Readability in printed education materials for Chinese patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a mixed-method design. BMJ Open 2020;10:e038091 [DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038091]
16. Maghsudi S, Khoshtarash M, Ghanbari A, Tabari R. Quality of patient education pamphlets in hospitals in rasht, northern iran. Journal of Guilan University Medical Sciences 2014;22:80-8 [Persian]
17. 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;72:342-9 [DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2008.03.010]
18. Avancini A, Benato G, Tregnago D, Trestini I, Milella M, Lanza M, et al. Development of educational print materials for physical activity in cancer: Evaluation of readability and suitability. Journal of Cancer Education 2021;38:1-8 [DOI:10.1007/s13187-021-02076-1]
19. Wong ST, Saddki N, Tin-Oo M. Readability and suitability of oral health education pamphlets produced by the Ministry of Health Malaysia. The Medical Journal of Malaysia 2019;74:312-9
20. Rahaei Z, Zare-Bidoki M. Assessment of a written educational auxiliary media in health education: A study about varnish fluoride. Journal of Health and Hygiene 2021;12:222-30 [Persian] [DOI:10.52547/j.health.12.2.222]
21. Hendrickson RL, Huebner CE, Riedy CA. Readability of pediatric health materials for preventive dental care. BMC Oral Health 2006;6:1-9 [DOI:10.1186/1472-6831-6-14]
22. Bouchard C. Literacy and hazard communication: Ensuring workers understand the information they receive. AAOHN Journal 2007;55:18-25 [DOI:10.1177/216507990705500103]
23. Sinyai C, Barlet G. Designing occupational safety and health training materials for clear communication. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2020;62:431-8 [DOI:10.1097/JOM.0000000000001857]
24. Taylor G. Readability of OHS documents-A comparison of surface characteristics of OHS text between some languages. Safety Science 2012;50:1627-35 [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2012.01.016]
25. Suleiman AM. Occupational safety and health professionals' work ability concept perception, and comprehension of regulations. Work 2017;56:483-90 [DOI:10.3233/WOR-172514]
26. LeBrun M, DiMuzio J, Beauchamp B, Reid S, Hogan V. Evaluating the health literacy burden of Canada's public advisories: a comparative effectiveness study on clarity and readability. Drug Safety 2013;36:1179-87 [DOI:10.1007/s40264-013-0117-8]
27. Budd D, Rajaram N, Clynick M, Holness DL. Worker feedback on occupational skin disease awareness posters. Contact Dermatitis 2018;79:314-60 [DOI:10.1111/cod.13057]
28. Sadeghi R, Mahmoodabad SSM, 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:e83117 [DOI:10.5812/ijhrba.83117]
29. Doak CC, Doak LG, Root JH. Teaching patients with low literacy skills. 2st Edition, Lippincott: Philadelpia, 1996:49-60
30. Robins S, Barr HJ, Idelson R, Lambert S, Zelkowitz P. Online health information regarding male infertility: an evaluation of readability, suitability, and quality. Interactive Journal of Medical Research 2016;5:e6440 [DOI:10.2196/ijmr.6440]
31. Weintraub D, Maliski SL, Fink A, Choe S, Litwin MS. Suitability of prostate cancer education materials: applying a standardized assessment tool to currently available materials. Patient Education and Counseling 2004;55:275-80 [DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2003.10.003]
32. Mc Laughlin GH. SMOG grading-a new readability formula. Journal of Reading 1969;12:639-46
33. Fazlollahi S, Maleki Tavana M. The evaluation and assessment of readability of the third grade science book in elementary school according to five standard formulas: Fry, Gunning, Flesch, Laughlin and Close. Journal of Curriculum Studies 2011;6:141-62 [Persian]
34. Kondori F. Assessing and comparing the readability level of Farsi reading books in the third grade of elementary school based on reading techniques. Journal of Pouyesh in Education and Consultation 2020;1399:22-41 [Persian]
35. Ghaderi Moghaddam ME, Sobhani Nejad M. Validation methods to measure textbooks readability. Curriculum Planning 2016;13:44-55 [Persian]
36. Jafari Harandi R JmA. Explain readability formulas as a basic method in textbook content analysis. Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities Journal 2010;16:97-116 [Persian]
37. Singh MK. Preparing and presenting effective abstracts and posters in psychiatry. Academic Psychiatry 2014;38:709-15 [DOI:10.1007/s40596-014-0190-z]
38. Hajizadeh A, Asghari M. Satistical methods and analyzes with a view to research methods in biological and health sciences. 3st Edition, Academic Jihad Publishing Organization: Tehran, 2018 [in Persian]
39. Rees C, Ford J, Sheard C. Patient information leaflets for prostate cancer: which leaflets should healthcare professionals recommend? Patient Education and Counseling 2003;49:263-72 [DOI:10.1016/S0738-3991(02)00188-X]
40. Eames S, McKenna K, Worrall L, Read S. The suitability of written education materials for stroke survivors and their carers. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation 2003;10:70-83 [DOI:10.1310/KQ70-P8UD-QKYT-DMG4]
41. Shieh C, Hosei B. Printed health information materials: evaluation of readability and suitability. Journal of community Health Nursing 2008;25:73-90 [DOI:10.1080/07370010802017083]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and Permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |