The CDC Clear Communication Index Health Education Materials Assessment Tool

Main Article Content

Leenawat Fakkheaw
Jedsada Suwanwaree
Yuwarat Moungngern
Kanthika Thintip
Supalak Mirattanaphrai

Abstract

The health education material assessment tool is an important instrument that media contributors use to reexamine communication elements that are crucial to readers’ understanding of the message. Consequently, readers may be able to identify the key message, then recognize the purpose and/or the concept, and finally put the information into use, which is the indication of a successful communication. Health literacy experts recommend many health education material assessment tools such as The Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM)2, The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT)3 and the CDC Clear Communication Index4. In this article, the CDC Clear Communication Index tool developed from the synthesis of communication elements by the US National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was demonstrated. The tool is trusted and widely used. Furthermore, research has shown that it promotes the clarity and readers' understanding of a key message. However, author team has not yet found implementation of CDC Clear Communication Index in Thai articles, so introducing the material assessment tool has rather been encouraged. The CDC Clear Communication Index in this article has been translated and adapted to fit into Thai context in order to be well practiced on the targeted demographics.

Article Details

How to Cite
1.
Fakkheaw L, Suwanwaree J, Moungngern Y, Thintip K, Mirattanaphrai S. The CDC Clear Communication Index Health Education Materials Assessment Tool. Siriraj Med Bull [Internet]. 2021 Jul. 1 [cited 2024 Sep. 1];14(3):41-7. Available from: https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/simedbull/article/view/251326
Section
Review Article

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC Clear Communication Index A Tool for Developing and Assessing CDC Public Communication Products User Guide. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Office of the Associate Director for Communication; 2019.

Doak C, Doak L, and Root J. [Internet]. Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM). 2008 [cited 21 March 2020]. Available from: http://aspiruslibrary.org/literacy/sam.pdf

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). [Internet]. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) and User’s Guide. 2014 [cited 10 November 2020]. Available from: https://www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/publications2/files/pemat_guide_0.pdf

CDC. [Internet]. CDC Clear Communication Index Score Sheet. 2014 [cited 16 December 2019]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/ccindex/pdf/full-index-score-sheet.pdf

สำนักงานโครงการขับเคลื่อนกรมอนามัย 4.0 เพื่อความรอบรู้ด้านสุขภาพของประชาชน กรมอนามัย กระทรวงสาธารณสุข . HLO Fact Sheet [อินเทอร์เน็ต]. 2017. [เข้าถึงเมื่อ 10 กันยายน 2561]. เข้าถึงได้จาก: http://dohhl.anamai.moph.go.th/download/2561/HLO_fact%20sheet_oct2017.pdf

Harvard T.H. CHAN School of Public Health [Internet]. Boston: Health Literacy Studies; Assessing Materials; [cited 2020 July 10]. Available from: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/healthliteracy/assessing-and-developing-materials/

Lauren McCormack. Best Practices in Risk Communication and Communicating Uncertainty:Applications to FDA-Regulated Products. FDA Risk Communication Advisory Committee.[Internet].2016[cited 2020 July 20];15.Available from : https://www.fda.gov/media/96182/download

Abrams M, Kurtz-Rossi S, Riffenburgh A, Savage B. Health Literacy Guidebook | UnityPoint Health [Internet]. Healthliterateorganization.org. 2014 [cited 8 July 2019]. Available from: http://www.HealthLiterateOrganization.org

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)[Internet].USA: The CDC Clear Communication Index; [updated 2020 August 6; cited 2020 November 3].Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/ccindex/index.html

Cynthia Baur, Christine Prue. The CDC Clear Communication Index Is a New Evidence-Based Tool to Prepare and Review Health Information. Health Promotion Practice 2014; 15(5): 629-37.