Rewrite patient-facing visual text in lay language and at a low reading level
For patient education and shared decision-making communication, use plain-language text annotation on patient-facing visual materials to improve readability and mitigate jargon-driven misunderstanding for readers with low health literacy.
- purpose:refine
- basis:empirical
- quality:readability
- lever:text-annotation
- access:plain-language:use
- knowledge:low
- literacy:novice
advice
Simplify the surrounding text
Rewrite the text around patient-facing visuals in lay language and at about a sixth-grade reading level. For example, simplify chart instructions, explanatory notes, and other written material so the visual message does not depend on clinical jargon.
reason
Why plain language matters here
Low-health-literacy readers can miss the message even when the visual itself is present if the surrounding text stays too technical. Plain wording lowers the reading burden so attention can stay on the decision or explanation.
Mechanism: Lay terminology and lower reading level reduce the decoding work required before the reader can use the visual information.
Evidence: This study found high rates of low and marginal health literacy among veterans and recommends lay terminology and educational materials written at a sixth-grade reading level as practical responses to those literacy deficits, especially in groups with lower measured literacy (Rodríguez et al., 2013).
Notes: The paper presents this as a patient-education strategy, not as a style rule for expert-facing material.
context
Use when text is part of the visual explanation
- User Goal: Understand a patient-facing visual well enough to support discussion or decision making.
- Data: Health information presented with written explanation, labels, instructions, or notes.
- Chart Setting: Patient education material or shared decision-making material that includes explanatory text.
- Audience: Readers with limited health literacy or audiences where inadequate health literacy is common.
- Success Criterion: Readers can understand the message without needing specialized medical vocabulary.
exceptions
Do not apply it outside patient-understanding needs
Break it when: the material is not written to support patient understanding in education or shared decision making. Why: the paper supports lay terminology and sixth-grade reading level as accommodations for low-health-literacy readers.
costs
Costs of simplifying text
Sacrifice: You give up professional terminology in the patient-facing wording. Risk: Text can remain hard to understand if you shorten it without removing jargon. Mitigation: Check understanding with a teach-back step after rewriting.
mistakes
Common failure with plain-language edits
Mistake: Shortening the text while leaving clinical jargon in place. Why it fails: The paper calls for lay terminology and a lower reading level, not just fewer words.
check
Check whether the wording is still too hard
Failure Sign: Labels, notes, or instructions still rely on non-lay medical wording. Quick Check: Inspect the patient-facing text and confirm that it uses lay terminology and targets about a sixth-grade reading level. Stronger Test: Use teach-back and see whether intended readers can explain the message in their own words.
fix
Fix the wording around the visual
- Replace clinical jargon in the patient-facing text with lay terminology.
- Rewrite the explanatory text to about a sixth-grade reading level.
- Re-test the revised material with a teach-back check.