↓ Skip to main content

Readability of written medicine information materials in Arabic language: expert and consumer evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Readability of written medicine information materials in Arabic language: expert and consumer evaluation
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-2944-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sinaa Al Aqeel, Norah Abanmy, Abeer Aldayel, Hend Al-Khalifa, Maha Al-Yahya, Mona Diab

Abstract

Written Medicine Information (WMI) is one of the sources that patients use to obtain information concerning medicine. This paper aims to assess the readability of two types of WMIs in Arabic language based on vocabulary use and sentence structure using a panel of experts and consumers. This is a descriptive study. Two different types of materials, including the online text from King Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz Arabic Health Encyclopaedia (KAAHE) and medication leaflets submitted by the manufacturers to the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) were evaluated. We selected a group of sentences from each WMI. The readability was assessed by experts (n = 5) and consumers (n = 5). The sentence readability of each measured using a specific criteria and rated as 1 = easy, 2 = intermediate, or 3 = difficult. A total of 4476 sentences (SFDA 2231; KAHEE 2245) extracted from websites or patient information leaflets on 50 medications and evaluated. The majority of the vocabulary and sentence structure was considered easy by both expert (SFDA: 68%; KAAHE: 76%) and consumer (SFDA: 76%; KAAHE: 84%) groups. The sentences with difficult or intermediate vocabulary and sentence structure are derived primarily from the precautions and side effects sections. The SFDA and KAAHE WMIs are easy to read and understand as judged by our study sample. However; there is room for improvement, especially in sections related to the side effects and precautions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Other 6 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 11%
Student > Master 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 15 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Computer Science 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 19 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,377,572
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,133
of 7,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,668
of 330,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#165
of 224 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,709 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,058 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 224 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.