Article published In: Specialised Translation in Spain: Institutional dimensions
Edited by José Santaemilia-Ruiz and Sergio Maruenda-Bataller
[Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 30:2] 2017
► pp. 592–610
Understanding and enhancing comprehensibility in texts for patients in an institutional health care context in Spain
A mixed methods analysis
Published online: 26 March 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.00008.gar
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.00008.gar
Abstract
This paper aims to analyse text comprehensibility in a corpus of Fact Sheets for Patients (FSPs) in Spanish as used in a real clinical and institutional setting in Spain; and to provide data and criteria that can help writers and translators to enhance text comprehensibility when dealing with FSPs. Regarding the methodology, we analysed a corpus of FSPs in Spanish in three subsequent stages: (1) readability formulae, (2) expert analysis, and (3) questionnaires and focus-groups addressing the real target readership of patients. Experts produced improved versions of two of the texts that were then compared and judged by the patients. According to the Inflesz/Word correlation we used in our analysis most texts of the corpus fall within normal difficulty values. However, the communication experts made critical comments about some of them regarding both readability and legibility and patients expressed the need for improvement of some aspects of the texts. This fact leads us to conclude that there is considerable room for improvement in FSPs in Spanish. Highly-sensitive patients and situations require the participation of real patients as readers in order to achieve the optimum degree of quality of originals and translations. Therefore, patients’ perceptions can be crucial to medical writers and translators when writing FSPs in a more comprehensible and empathetic way.
Resumen
El presente trabajo plantea el análisis de la comprensibilidad textual en un corpus de folletos para pacientes en español de los que se utilizan en contextos clínicos e institucionales reales en España; y proporciona datos y criterios que pueden ayudar a redactores y traductores a mejorar la comprensibilidad cuando trabajen con dichos folletos.
Desde el punto de vista metodológico, se analiza un corpus de folletos para pacientes en español en tres etapas: (1) fórmulas de legibilidad, (2) análisis de expertos, y (3) cuestionarios y focus-group dirigidos a pacientes como destinatarios reales. Los expertos producen versiones mejoradas de dos de los textos, que posteriormente son comparados y evaluados por los pacientes. Así, siguiendo la correlación Inflesz/Word que utilizamos en nuestro análisis, la mayoría de los textos del corpus se enmarcan dentro de los valores normales de dificultad. Sin embargo, los expertos en comunicación realizan comentarios críticos sobre algunos de ellos en relación con su legibilidad y los pacientes ponen de manifiesto la necesidad de que se mejoren algunos aspectos de los textos. Todo ello nos lleva a la conclusión de que todavía hay mucho margen de mejora de los folletos para pacientes en español. La existencia de pacientes y situaciones altamente sensibles requieren de la participación de pacientes reales como lectores para alcanzar un grado óptimo de calidad de los textos originales y sus traducciones. En ese sentido, las percepciones de los pacientes pueden resultar cruciales para que los redactores y traductores médicos aborden la redacción de los folletos para pacientes de un modo más comprensible y empático.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Materials and methods
- Stage I.Analysing comprehensibility through readability formulae
- Stage II.Analysing comprehensibility through questionnaires to language and communication specialists
- Stage III.Analysing comprehensibility through focus-groups and questionnaires answered by patients
- 3.Results
- 4.Discussion, conclusion and practical implications
- 4.1Discussion and conclusion
- 4.2Limitations and practical implications
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (34)
Anderson, R., & Funell, M. (2010). Patient empowerment: Myths and misconceptions. Patient Education and Counseling, 791, 277–282.
Ballonoff Suleiman, A., Lin, J. S., & Constantine, N. (2016). Readability of educational materials to support parent sexual communication with their children and adolescents. Journal of Health Communication, 211, 534–543. .
Barrio Cantalejo, I. M., Simón-Lorda, P., Melguizo, M., Escalona, I., Marijuán, M. I., & Hernando, P. (2008). Validación de la Escala INFLESZ para evaluar la legibilidad de los textos dirigidos a pacientes (Validation of the INFLESZ scale to evaluate readability of texts aimed at the patient). Anales del Sistema Sanitario Navarro, 311, 135–152.
Boles, C. D., Liu, Y., & November-Rider, D. (2016). Readability levels of dental patient education brochures. The Journal of Dental Hygiene, 901, 28–34.
Brown, E., Skinner, M., Ashley, S., Reed, K. & Dixon, S. (2015). Assessment of the readability of genetic counseling patient letters. Journal of Genetic Counselling, 251, 454–460.
Catoni, M. I., Palma, E., Caballero, E., Arechabala, M. C., Peralta, S., Rebolledo, M., & Carrasco, P. (2004). Evaluación de la calidad de un manual de autocuidado para pacientes en hemodiálisis crónica. Revista SEDEN, 71, 119–125.
Choudhry, A. J., Baghdadi, Y. M. K., Wagie, A. E., Habermann, E. B., Heller, S., Jenkins, D. H., Cullinane, D. C., & Zielinski, M. D. (2016). Readability of discharge summaries: With what level of information are we dismissing our patients? American Journal of Surgery, 2111, 631–636.
Corcoran, N., & Ahmad, F. (2016). The readability and suitability of sexual health promotion leaflets. Patient Education and Counseling, 991, 284–286.
Eltorai, A. E., Thomas, N. P., Yang, H., Daniels, A. H., & Born, C. T. (2016). Readability of trauma-related patient education materials from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Trauma Monthly, 211, e20141.
Epstein, R., Franks, P., Shields, C., Meldrum, S., Miller, K., Campbell, T., & Fiscell, K. (2005). Patient-centered communication and diagnostic testing. Annals of Family Medicine, 51, 415–421.
García-Izquierdo, I., & Gamero, S. (unpublished). Criterios para la evaluación de folletos de salud. Castellón: Gentt group research results.
Generalitat Valenciana. (2010). Calidad sobre la información de salud y cáncer en Internet. Valencia: Informes de Salud, 124, Conselleria de Sanitat.
Göpferich, S. (2009). Comprehensibility assessment using the Karlsruhe comprehensibility concept. Journal of Specialised Translation, 111.
Hunt, W., & MacGrant, E. J. (2016). Evaluation of the readability of dermatological postoperative patient information leaflets across England. Dermatologic Surgery: Official Publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, 421, 757–763.
Ibrahim, A. M., Vargas, C. R., Koolen, P. G., Chuang, D. J., Lin, S. J., & Lee, B. T. (2016). Readability of online patient resources for melanoma. Melanoma Research, 261, 58–65.
Jensen, M. N. (2015). Optimising comprehensibility in interlingual translation: The need for intralingual translation. In K. Maksymski, S. Gutermuth, & S. Hansen-Schirra (Eds.), Translation and comprehensibility (pp. 163–194). Berlin: Frank & Timme GmbH.
Koskinen, K. (2010). Institutional translation. In Y. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies, vol. 21 (pp. 54–60). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kristallidou, D. K. (2012). On mediating agents’ moves and how they might affect patient-centredness in mediated medical consultations in translation and knowledge mediation in medical and health settings. Linguistica Antverpiensia, 111, 75–93.
Martí Ferriol, J. L. (2016). Selection and validation of a measurement instrument for readability calculations in patient information leaflets for oncological patients in Spain. Journal of Research Design and Statistics in Linguistics and Communication Science, 3-11, 1-16.
Maksymski, K., Gutermuth, S., & Hansen-Schirra, S. (Eds.). (2015) Translation and comprehensibility. Berlin: Frank & Timme GmbH.
Mayor Serrano, M. B. (2008). Cómo elaborar folletos de salud dirigidos a los pacientes. Barcelona: Fundación Esteve Cano.
Pilegaard, M., & Ravn, H. B. (2012). Readability of patient information can be improved. Danish Medical Journal, 591, 1–5.
Piñero-Lopez, M. A., Modamio, P., Lastra, C. F., & Marino, E. L. (2016). Readability analysis of the package leaflets for biological medicines available on the Internet between 2007 and 2013: An analytical longitudinal study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 181, e100.
Ryu, J. H., & Yi, P. (2016). Readability of spine-related patient education materials from leading orthopedic academic centers. Spine, 411, E561–565.
Suojanen, T., Koskinen, K., & Tuominen, T. (2015). User-centered translation. London/New York: Routledge.
Szigriszt Pazos, F. (1993). Sistemas predictivos de legibilidad del mensaje escrito: Fórmula de perspicuidad. PhD thesis. Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
World Health Organization. (1998). Promoción de la salud: Glosario. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo (Spanish translation of The WHO health promotion glossary, prepared on behalf of WHO by Don Nutbeam, WHO Collaborating Centre for Health Promotion, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Sydney, Australia).
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
García-Izquierdo, Isabel
García-Izquierdo, Isabel & Begoña Bellés-Fortuño
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
