Readability, Suitability and Health Content Assessment of Cancer Screening Announcements in Municipal Newspapers in Japan

  • Okuhara, Tsuyoshi (Department of Health Communication, School of Public Health, The University of Tokyo) ;
  • Ishikawa, Hirono (Department of Health Communication, School of Public Health, The University of Tokyo) ;
  • Okada, Hiroko (Department of Social Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo) ;
  • Kiuchi, Takahiro (Department of Health Communication, School of Public Health, The University of Tokyo)
  • Published : 2015.10.06


Background: The objective of this study was to assess the readability, suitability, and health content of cancer screening information in municipal newspapers in Japan. Materials and Methods: Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) and the framework of Health Belief Model (HBM) were used for assessment of municipal newspapers that were published in central Tokyo (23 wards) from January to December 2013. Results: The mean domain SAM scores of content, literacy demand, and layout/typography were considered superior. The SAM scores of interaction with readers, an indication of the models of desirable actions, and elaboration to enhance readers' self-efficacy were low. According to the HBM coding, messages of medical/clinical severity, of social severity, of social benefits, and of barriers of fear were scarce. Conclusions: The articles were generally well written and suitable. However, learning stimulation/motivation was scarce and the HBM constructs were not fully addressed. Practice implications: Articles can be improved to motivate readers to obtain cancer screening by increasing interaction with readers, introducing models of desirable actions and devices to raise readers' self-efficacy, and providing statements of perceived barriers of fear for pain and time constraints, perceived severity, and social benefits and losses.


Patient education material;cancer screening;readability assessment in material;Tokyo newspapers


Supported by : JSPS KAKENHI


  1. Abbaszadeh A, Haghdoost A, Taebi M, et al (2007). The relationship between women's health beliefs and their participation in screening mammography. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 8, 471-5.
  2. Akansel N, Aydin N (2011). Suitability of Turkish written patient educational materials related to breast cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 12, 1543-7.
  3. Allahverdipour H, Emami A (2008). Perceptions of cervical cancer threat, benefits, and barriers of Papanicolaou smear screening programs for women in Iran. Women Health, 47, 23-37.
  4. Allahverdipour H, Asghari-Jafarabadi M, Emami A (2011). Breast cancer risk perception, benefits of and barriers to mammography adherence among a group of Iranian women. Women Health, 51, 204-19.
  5. Avci IA, Kumcagiz H, Altinel B, et al (2014). Turkish female academician self-esteem and health beliefs for breast cancer screening. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 155-60.
  6. Bandura A (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev, 84, 191-215.
  7. Bandura A (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
  8. Baysal HY, Polat H (2012). Determination of the breast cancer risk levels and health beliefs of women with and without previous mammography in the eastern part of Turkey. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 13, 5213-7.
  9. Blum D, Rosa D, deWolf-Linder S, et al (2014). Development and validation of a medical chart review checklist for symptom management performance of oncologists in the routine care of patients with advanced cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage, 48, 1160-7.
  10. Boonpongmanee C, Jittanoon P (2007). Predictors of Papanicolaou testing in working women in Bangkok, Thailand. Cancer Nurs, 30, 384-9.
  11. Demirtas B, Acikgoz I (2013). Promoting attendance at cervical cancer screening: understanding the relationship with Turkish womens' health beliefs. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 333-40.
  12. de Wit JB, Das E, Vet R (2008). What works best: objective statistics or a personal testimonial? An assessment of the persuasive effects of different types of message evidence on risk perception. Health Psychol, 27, 110-5.
  13. Doak LG, Doak CC, Meade CD (1996a). Strategies to improve cancer education materials. Oncol Nurs Forum, 23, 1305-12.
  14. Doak CC, Doak LG, Root JH. 1996b. Assessing suitability of materials. in 'teaching patients with low literacy skills, 2nd edition', eds Doak CC, Doak LG, Root JH. Lippincott, Philadelphia pp 41-60.
  15. Ersin F, Bahar Z (2011). Effect of health belief model and health promotion model on breast cancer early diagnosis behavior: a systematic review. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 12, 2555-62.
  16. Ersin F, Bahar Z (2013). Barriers and facilitating factors perceived in Turkish women's behaviors towards early cervical cancer detection: A qualitative approach. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 4977-82.
  17. Esin MN, Bulduk S, Ardic A (2011). Beliefs about cervical cancer screening among Turkish married women. J Cancer Educ, 26, 510-5.
  18. Fouladi N, Pourfarzi F, Mazaheri E, et al (2013). Beliefs and behaviors of breast cancer screening in women referring to health care centers in northwest Iran according to the champion health belief model scale. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 6857-62.
  19. Goodfellow NA, Almomani BA, Hawwa AF, et al (2013). What the newspapers say about medication adherence: a content analysis. BMC Public Health, 13, 909.
  20. Green MC, Brock TC (2002). In the mind's eye: Transportationimagery model of narrative persuasion. In 'Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations', Eds Green MC, Strange JJ, Brock TC. Psychology Press, New York.
  21. Helitzer D, Hollis C, Cotner J, Oestreicher N (2009). Health literacy demands of written health information materials: an assessment of cervical cancer prevention materials. Cancer Control, 16, 70-78.
  22. Hilmi I, Hartono JL, Goh KL (2010). Negative perception in those at highest risk--potential challenges in colorectal cancer screening in an urban asian population. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 11, 815-22.
  23. Institute of Medicine (US) Roundtable on Health Literacy (2009). Measures of health literacy: workshop summary. national academies press, washington DC.
  24. Janz NK, Becker MH (1984). The health belief model: a decade later. Health Educ Q, 11, 1-47.
  25. Javadzade SH, Reisi M, Mostafavi F, et al (2012). Factors associated with the fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening based on health belief model structures in moderate risk individuals, Isfahan. J Educ Health Promot, 1, 18.
  26. Kaphingst KA, Zanfini CJ, Emmons KM (2006). Accessibility of web sites containing colorectal cancer information to adults with limited literacy (united states). Cancer Causes Control, 17, 147-51.
  27. Kreuter MW, Holmes K, Alcaraz K, et al (2010). Comparing narrative and informational videos to increase mammography in low-income african american women. Patient Educ Couns, 81, 6-14.
  28. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-74.
  29. Loewenstein G (1994). The psychology of curiosity: a review and reinterpretation. Psychol Bull, 116, 75-98.
  30. Ma GX, Gao W, Fang CY, et al (2013). Health beliefs associated with cervical cancer screening among Vietnamese Americans. J Womens Health, 22, 276-88.
  31. Mackert M, Love B (2011). Educational content and health literacy issues in direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals. Health Mark Q, 28, 205-18.
  32. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan (2013). Study meeting interim report of cancer screening policies. ministry of health, labour and welfare, Japan, Tokyo.
  33. National Cancer Center, Japan. Cancer statistics in japan, center for cancer control and information services. [15.04.23]
  34. Nielsen-Bohlman L, Panzer AM, Kindig DA Eds (2004). Health literacy: a prescription to end confusion. the national academies press, washington DC.
  35. Noro I (2009). Suitability of printed materials for patients: comprehensibility and feeling of ease with informed consent document, PhD thesis. Tohoku University, information science, Sendai, pp 100-121.
  36. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan. Office for cancer control, basic plan to promote cancer control programs approved, website health services bureau. [15.04.23]
  37. OECD Health Statistics (2014). [15.04.23]
  38. Oldach BR, Katz ML (2014). Health literacy and cancer screening: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns, 94, 149-57.
  39. Rees CE, Ford JE, Sheard CE (2003). Patient information leaflets for prostate cancer: which leaflets should healthcare professionals recommend? Patient Educ Couns, 49, 263-72.
  40. Sadoski M, Goetz ET, Rodriguez M (2000). Engaging texts: Effects of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and recall in four text types. J Educ Psychol, 92, 85-95.
  41. Sato S and his laboratory at Nagoya University (2009). Readability analyzer of Japanese language. [14.08.20]
  42. Shiryazdi SM, Kholasehzadeh G, Neamatzadeh H, et al (2014). Health beliefs and breast cancer screening behaviors among iranian female health workers. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 9817-22.
  43. Shuhatovich OM, Sharman MP, Mirabal YN, et al (2005). Participant recruitment and motivation for participation in optical technology for cervical cancer screening research trials. Gynecol Oncol, 99, 226-31.
  44. Smith F, Carlsson E, Kokkinakis D, et al (2014). Readability, suitability and comprehensibility in patient education materials for Swedish patients with colorectal cancer undergoing elective surgery: a mixed method design. Patient Educ Couns, 94, 202-9.
  45. Taymoori, P, Moshki M, Roshani D (2014). Facilitator psychological constructs for mammography screening among Iranian women. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15, 7309-16.
  46. Tian C, Champlin S, Mackert M (2014). Readability, suitability, and health content assessment of web-based patient education materials on colorectal cancer screening. Gastrointest Endosc, 80, 284-90.
  47. Tokyo Metropolitan Government Bureau of Social Welfare and Public Health (2013). Tokyo cancer prevention and examination factual survey report, 2013. Tokyo Metropolitan Government Bureau of Social Welfare and Public Health, Tokyo.
  48. Tsunematsu M, Kawasaki H, Masuoka Y, et al (2013). Factors affecting breast cancer screening behavior in Japanassessment using the health belief model and conjoint analysis. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 6041-8.
  49. Urban N, Taplin SH, Taylor VM, et al (1995). Community organization to promote breast cancer screening among women ages 50-75. Prev Med, 24, 477-84.
  50. Wallace LS, Rogers ES, Turner LW, et al (2006). Suitability of written supplemental materials available on the Internet for nonprescription medications. Am J Health Syst Pharm, 63, 71-8.
  51. Weintraub D, Maliski SL, Fink A, et al (2004). Suitability of prostate cancer education materials: applying a standardized assessment tool to currently available materials. Patient Educ Couns, 55, 275-80.
  52. Womeodu RJ, Bailey JE (1996). Barriers to cancer screening. Med Clin North Am, 80, 115-33.
  53. Yilmaz D, Bebis H, Ortabag T (2013). Determining the awareness of and compliance with breast cancer screening among Turkish residential women. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 3281-8.

Cited by

  1. Simplified Readability Metric Drives Improvement of Radiology Reports: an Experiment on Ultrasound Reports at a Pediatric Hospital vol.30, pp.6, 2017,
  2. Trustworthiness, Readability, and Suitability of Web-Based Information for Stroke Prevention and Self-Management for Korean Americans: Critical Evaluation vol.7, pp.2, 2018,
  3. Suitability of asthma education materials for school-age children: Implications for health literacy vol.27, pp.5-6, 2018,