A qualitative study on the effectiveness of displayed health education materials (HEMs) in an immunization clinic of a tertiary care hospital in West Bengal, India
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26555/eshr.v5i1.6313Keywords:
Key words: Effectiveness, health education material, immunization clinicAbstract
Background: Health education materials are intended to percolate certain messages to the general population in order to influence their knowledge and attitude toward health issues. The current study aims to determine the effectiveness of health education materials in terms of visibility, attractiveness, and clarity of message perceived by the study participants.
Method: A cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted in the immunization clinic of a tertiary care hospital in West Bengal, India, upon 32 caregivers accompanying the children for immunization. Their explanation of the posters was recorded, transcribed, and translated into English. Results were obtained by analyzing data in both MS Excel and Visual Anthropac.
Results: Out of 20 displayed posters, 12 were mostly situated around the vaccination table and had a pictorial presentation with child images. Those posters were first noticed by the participants while waiting. After the pile sorting of 10 attractive posters, four were related to child health, four were about nutrition and breastfeeding, and 2 were included under the personal hygiene group. Only a single poster associated with Vitamin A oil was fully understood by all respondents. A total of 6 posters were fully or partially understood by more than 80% of the respondents, whereas 3 posters related to personal hygiene were wrongly interpreted.
Conclusion: The health education materials in the immunization clinic may be planned in clear pictorial presentation with less text, so those could be noticed easily and accompanied with audiovisual aids for understanding correctly.
References
Tones K. Health education: evidence of effectiveness. Arch Dis Child. 1997 Sep 1;77(3):189–91.
Deo M. Doctor population ratio for India - The reality. Indian J Med Res. 2013 Apr 1;137:632–5.
Preston MA, Baranowski T, Higginbotham JC. Orchestrating the points of community intervention: enhancing the diffusion process. Int Q Community Health Educ 1988 Jan 1;9(1):11–34.
Ward K, Hawthorne K. Do patients read health promotion posters in the waiting room? A study in one general practice. Br J Gen Pract 1994 Dec;44(389):583–5.
Majhi M, Bhatnagar N. Updated B.G Prasad’s classification for the year 2021: consideration for new base year 2016. J Fam Med Prim Care 2021;10(11):4318.
Maskell K, McDonald P, Paudyal P. Effectiveness of health education materials in general practice waiting rooms: a cross-sectional study. Br J Gen Pract 2018 Dec;68(677):e869–76.
See MTA, Chan WCS, Huggan PJ, Tay YK, Liaw SY. Effectiveness of a patient education intervention in enhancing the self-efficacy of hospitalized patients to recognize and report acute deteriorating conditions. Patient Educ Couns 2014 Oct;97(1):122–7.
Gignon M, Idris H, Manaouil C, Ganry O. The waiting room: vector for health education? the general practitioner’s point of view. BMC Res Notes [Internet]. 2012 Dec;5(1). Available from: https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1756-0500-5-511
Montazeri A, Sajadian A. Do women read poster displays on breast cancer in waiting rooms? J Public Health[internet]. 2004 Dec 1[cited 2022 July 24];26(4):355–8.
Davis TC, Crouch MA, Wills G, Miller S, Abdehou DM. The gap between patient reading comprehension and the readability of patient education materials. J Fam Pract 1990 Nov;31(5):533-8. PMID: 2230677.
Jaafar N, Perialathan K, Zulkepli MZ, Mohd Zin Z, Jonoi PE, Johari MZ. Patients’ Perception Towards Health Education Services Received at the Enhanced Primary Healthcare Facilities: A Qualitative Exploration. J Prim Care Community Health 2020 Jan;11:215013272098062.
Murugesu L, Heijmans M, Rademakers J, Fransen MP. Challenges and solutions in communication with patients with low health literacy: Perspectives of healthcare providers. PLoS One 2022 May 4;17(5): e0267782. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267782. PMID: 35507632; PMCID: PMC9067671.
Ousseine YM, Durand MA, Bouhnik AD, Smith AB, Mancini J. Multiple health literacy dimensions are associated with physicians’ efforts to achieve shared decision-making. Patient education and counseling. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.05.015 .
Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Kinnersley P, et al. Shared decision making: A model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(10):1361–7.
Légaré F, Witteman HO. Shared decision making: examining key elements and barriers to adoption into routine clinical practice. Health affairs 2013;32(2):276–84. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1078
Vennedey V, Hower KI, Hillen H, Ansmann L, Kuntz L, Stock S. Patients’ perspectives of facilitators and barriers to patient-centred care: insights from qualitative patient interviews. BMJ open 2020;10(5), e033449. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033449
Wicke DM, Lorge RE, Coppin RJ, Jones KP. The effectiveness of waiting room noticeboards as a vehicle for health education. Fam Pract 1994; 11(3): 292–295.
Shah A, Scogin F, Pierpaoli CM. Older adults’ attitudes toward depression screening in primary care settings and exploring a brief educational pamphlet. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2018; 33(1): e40–e48.
Jawad M, Ingram S, Choudhury I, et al. Television-based health promotion in general practice waiting rooms in London: a cross-sectional study evaluating patients’ knowledge and intentions to access dental services. BMC Oral Health 2016; 17(1): 24.
Eubelen C, Brendel F, Belche JL, et al. Effect of an audiovisual message for tetanus booster vaccination broadcast in the waiting room. BMC Fam Pract 2011; 12: 104.
Koperski M. Health education using video recordings in a general practice waiting area: an evaluation. J R Coll Gen Pract 1989; 39(325): 328–330.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Maumita De, Saikat Bhattacharya, Soumitra Mondal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with ESHR agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
