Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Research
  • Published:

Linguistic assessment and readability of paediatric dental patient education materials: an exploratory study

British Dental Journal (2026)Cite this article

Abstract

Objectives To explore linguistic characteristics of patient education materials (PEM) in paediatric dentistry.

Methods A convenience sample of 52 PEM articles (2013–2023) was obtained from four sources: plain language summaries of Cochrane systematic reviews (n = 25), Journal of American Dental Association patient pamphlets (n = 15), online patient health information from the Canadian Dental Association (n = 7), and MedLine Plus (n = 5) websites. Two investigators manually evaluated articles using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) – printed materials. Additional computerised analyses included five Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) measurements and two readability measurements (Flesch Reading Ease and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook). Descriptive and comparative statistics were undertaken.

Results PEM articles from all four sources scored above the recommended 70% threshold for both PEMAT composite measurements (understandability/actionability) but minimal use (21%) of visual aids was identified. Mean values of LIWC summary measures (analytical thinking = 84, authenticity = 46, clout = 53, emotional tone = 29, big words = 26) indicated scope for linguistic improvement of PEM articles. Readability analyses indicated PEM articles were generally easy to read (≤Grade 6 level) except for Cochrane articles (Grade 9 level).

Conclusions PEM articles evaluated in present study were sub-optimal thereby reducing parental ability to make well-informed decisions for their children.

Key points

  • Contemporary patient education materials in paediatric dentistry are difficult for laypersons to comprehend.

  • The present study indicates the use of Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool in addition to readability analyses (Flesch Reading Ease/Simple Measure of Gobbledygook) during preparation of patient education materials.

  • Improving patient education materials in paediatric dentistry would allow parents to make well-informed decisions for their children.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The roster of 52 patient education material articles analysed in the study is available as a supplementary file. The data supporting the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

References

  1. Lipstein E A, Brinkman W B, Britto M T. What is known about parents' treatment decisions? A narrative review of paediatric decision making. Med Decis Making 2012; 32: 246–258.

  2. National Institutes of Health. Current bibliographies in medicine. 2000. Available at www.nlm.nih.gov/archive/20061214/pubs/cbm/hliteracy.pdf (accessed 16 December 2024).

  3. Sanders L M, Federico S, Klass P, Abrams M A, Dreyer B. Literacy and child health – a systematic review. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2009; 163: 131–140.

  4. Zaidman E A, Scott K M, Hahn D, Bennett P, Caldwell P H Y. Impact of parental health literacy on the health outcomes of children with chronic disease globally: a systematic review. J Paediatr Child Health 2023; 59: 12–31.

  5. Firmino R T, Ferreira F M, Martins C C, Granville-Garcia A F, Fraiz F C, Paiva S M. Is parental oral health literacy a predictor of children's oral health outcomes? Systematic review of the literature. Int J Paediat Dent 2018; DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12378.

  6. Jackson R. Parental health literacy and children's dental health: implications for the future. Pediatr Dent 2006; 28: 72–75.

  7. Hendrickson R L, Huebner C E, Riedy C A. Readability of paediatric health materials for preventive dental care. BMC Oral Health 2006; 6: 14.

  8. Vishnevetsky J, Walters C B, Tan K S. Interrater reliability of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Patient Educ Counsel 2018; 101: 490–496.

  9. Nash E, Bickerstaff M, Chetwynd A J, Hawcutt D B, Oni L. The readability of parent information leaflets in paediatric studies. Pediatr Res 2023; 94: 1166–1171.

  10. Ley P, Florio T. The use of readability formulas in health care. Psychol Health Med 1996; 1: 7–28.

  11. Leung J-Y, Riordain R N, Porter S. Readability and quality of online information regarding dental treatment for patients with ischaemic heart disease. Br Dent J 2020; 228: 609–614.

  12. Alexander R E. Readability of published dental educational materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2000; 131: 937–942.

  13. Arora A, Lam A S F, Karami Z, Do L G, Harris M F. How readable are Australian paediatric oral health education materials? BMC Oral Health 2014; 14: 111.

  14. Amini H, Casamassimo P S, Lin H L, Hayes J R. Readability of the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry patient education materials. Pediatr Dent 2007; 29: 431–435.

  15. Shoemaker S J, Wolf M S, Brach C. Development of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT): a new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information. Patient Educ Counsel 2014; 96: 395–403.

  16. Srivastava S B. Language: a powerful tool in promoting health behaviours. Am J Lifestyle Med 2019; 13: 359–361.

  17. Puhl R, Peterson J L, Luedicke J. Motivating or stigmatizing? Public perceptions of weight-related language used by health providers. Int J Obes 2013; 37: 612–619.

  18. Granello D H, Gibbs T A. The power of language and labels: ‘the mentally ill' versus ‘people with mental illnesses'. J Couns Dev 2016; 94: 31–40.

  19. Boyd R L, Ashokkumar A, Seraj S, Pennebaker J W. The development and psychometric properties of LIWC-22. 2022. Available at https://www.liwc.app/static/documents/LIWC-22%20Manual%20-%20Development%20and%20Psychometrics.pdf (accessed 16 December 2024).

  20. LIWC-22. Introducing LIWC-22: a new set of text analysis tools at your fingertips. Available at https://www.liwc.app (accessed 16 December 2024).

  21. Banić A, Fidahić M, Šuto J et al. Conclusiveness, linguistic characteristics and readability of Cochrane plain language summaries of intervention reviews: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2022; 22: 240.

  22. Dillner L. Is Wikipedia a reliable source for medical advice? The Guardian (London) 1 June 2014.

  23. Sepkowitz K A. Looking for the final word on treatment. The New York Times (New York) 14 May 2014.

  24. Ginsburg S, Gingerich A, Kogan J R, Watling C J, Eva K W. Idiosyncrasy in assessment comments: do faculty have distinct writing styles when completing in-training evaluation reports? Acad Med 2020; DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003643.

  25. Shoemaker S J, Wolf M S, Brach C. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) and User's Guide. 2014. Available at https://www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/publications/files/pemat_guide.pdf (accessed 16 December 2024).

  26. McLaughlin G H. SMOG grading – a new readability formula. J Read 1969; 12: 639–646.

  27. Meade M J, Dreyer C W. Web-based information on orthodontic clear aligners: a qualitative and readability assessment. Aust Dent J 2020; 65: 225–232.

  28. Meade M J, Dreyer C W. Orthodontic treatment consent forms: a readability analysis. J Orthod 2022; 49: 32–38.

  29. Pitcher N, Mitchell D, Hughes C. Template and guidance for writing a Cochrane plain language summary. 2022. Available at https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/guidance-writing-cochrane-plain-language-summary.pdf (accessed 16 December 2024).

  30. Šuto J, Marušić A, Buljan I. Linguistic analysis of plain language summaries and corresponding scientific summaries of Cochrane systematic reviews about oncology interventions. Cancer Med 2023; 12: 10950–10960.

  31. Seehra J, Bertl K, Faggion C M Jr, Pandis N. The certainty of the evidence in oral health has not improved according to GRADE. a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol 2022; 142: 29–37.

  32. Braithwaite R S. A piece of my mind. EBM's six dangerous words. JAMA 2013; 310: 2149–2150.

  33. Garcia-Retamero R, Cokely E T. Designing visual aids that promote risk literacy: a systematic review of health research and evidence-based design heuristics. Human Factors 2017; 59: 582–627.

  34. Seehra J, Cockerham L, Pandis N. A quality assessment of orthodontic patient information leaflets. Prog Orthod 2016; 17: 15.

  35. Karačić J, Dondio P, Buljan I, Hren D, Marušić A. Languages for different health information readers: multitrait-multimethod content analysis of Cochrane systematic reviews textual summary formats. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019; 19: 75.

  36. Kirchner G J, Kim R Y, Weddle J B, Bible J E. Can artificial intelligence improve the readability of patient education materials? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2023; 481: 2260–2267.

  37. Will J, Gupta M, Zaretsky J, Dowlath A, Testa P, Feldman J. Enhancing the readability of online patient education materials using large language models: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res 2025; DOI: 10.2196/69955.

  38. Nasra M, Jaffri R, Pavlin-Premri D et al. Can artificial intelligence improve patient educational material readability? A systematic review and narrative synthesis. Intern Med J 2025; 55: 20–34.

  39. Torres R B, Restrepo M, Stern B Z et al. Artificial intelligence shows limited success in improving readability of levels of Spanish-language orthopaedic patient education materials. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2025; 483: 1185–1192.

Download references

Funding

AL received funding for this study from the 2023 Undergraduate Summer Research Program, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dental Student, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Abby Lindzon

  2. Associate Professor of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    S. M. Hashim Nainar

Authors
  1. Abby Lindzon
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. M. Hashim Nainar
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AL and SMHN both contributed to the conception, drafted, reviewed, revised and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. M. Hashim Nainar.

Ethics declarations

The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest. The study did not require ethical approval or consent as it used publicly available information.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lindzon, A., Nainar, S. Linguistic assessment and readability of paediatric dental patient education materials: an exploratory study. Br Dent J (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-025-9248-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-025-9248-4

Search

Advanced search

Quick links