Aphasia friendly written health information: Content and design characteristics

TLDR

People with aphasia require communicatively accessible written health information, and providers need guidance on developing printed education materials in formats that are preferred and readable by this population. The study explored formatting characteristics that act as barriers or facilitators to reading printed education materials. Semi‑structured interviews with 40 adults with aphasia, sampled for variation in severity, reading ability, and time post‑stroke, were used to rank and comment on stroke and aphasia PEMs, and qualitative content analysis identified 45 facilitator and 46 barrier codes grouped into content and design characteristics. Most participants preferred aphasia‑friendly stroke (56.4%) and aphasia (87.2%) PEMs, supporting literature recommendations and indicating that routine consideration of identified facilitators and barriers will improve accessibility.

Abstract

People with aphasia need communicatively accessible written health information. Healthcare providers require knowledge of how to develop printed education materials (PEMs) in formats that people with aphasia prefer and can read. This study aimed to explore formatting characteristics considered to be barriers and facilitators to reading PEMs. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 40 adults with aphasia who were selected using maximum variation sampling across aphasia severity, reading ability, and time post-stroke. Participants were shown stroke and aphasia PEMs obtained from the recruiting stroke services, asked to rank them from most liked to least liked, and comment on factors that made the PEMs easier and harder to read. The majority of participants ranked the aphasia friendly stroke (56.4%, n = 22) and aphasia (87.2%, n = 34) PEMs as most liked. Forty-five facilitator and 46 barrier codes were identified using qualitative content analysis and grouped into two categories; (1) content characteristics and (2) design characteristics. Findings support many of the recommendations found within the literature for developing best practice PEMs and accessible information for other patient groups. Routine consideration of the facilitators and barriers identified will contribute to making written information more accessible to people with aphasia.