112 S. Ito et al.: Radioprotection 2025, 60( 1), 109 – 119
Table 1. Characteristics of Nuclear Emergency Preparedness Materials( n = 116). n %
Source Municipalities |
54 |
46.6 |
Prefectures |
27 |
23.3 |
National Government / Ministry |
18 |
15.5 |
Academic Organizations |
13 |
11.2 |
Businesses |
4 |
3.4 |
Target audience General Adult |
102 |
87.9 |
Elementary School Students |
8 |
6.9 |
Junior High School Students |
4 |
3.4 |
High School Students |
1 |
0.9 |
Egalitarian Japanese |
1 |
0.9 |
PEMAT Understandability(> 70) |
71 |
61.2 |
Actionability(> 70) |
57 |
49.1 |
JAMA Benchmark Criteria Authorship |
116 |
100.0 |
Attribution |
41 |
35.3 |
Disclosure |
116 |
100.0 |
Currency |
93 |
80.2 |
GQS( M, SD) |
4.1 |
1.0 |
Number of words( median) |
7346.5 |
Reading time, min( median) |
11.3 |
jReadability Very readable |
0 |
0.0 |
Readable |
1 |
0.9 |
Neutral |
2 |
1.7 |
Somewhat difficult |
10 |
8.6 |
Difficult |
82 |
70.7 |
Very difficult |
18 |
15.5 |
Not measurable( too difficult) |
3 |
2.6 |
Year of material update 2007 year |
1 |
0.9 |
2012 year |
4 |
3.4 |
2013 year |
4 |
3.4 |
2014 year |
9 |
7.8 |
2015 year |
3 |
2.6 |
2016 year |
5 |
4.3 |
2017 year |
4 |
3.4 |
2018 year |
11 |
9.5 |
2019 year |
10 |
8.6 |
2020 year |
8 |
6.9 |
2021 year |
5 |
4.3 |
2022 year |
8 |
6.9 |
2023 year |
21 |
18.1 |
Unknown |
23 |
19.8 |
The PEMAT-P item scores are listed in Table 4. With respect to the results for all materials, the following items were applicable to more than 80 % of those materials:“ No unnecessary info( item 2; 94.0 %)”,“ No calculations( item 6; 95.4 %)”,“ Use of informative headers( item 8; 89.7 %)”,
“ Info presentation in logical sequence( item 9; 81.0 %)”,“ use of visual aids( item 12; 81.9 %)”,“ use of simple table( item 16; 93.4 %)”, and“ Clearly identified at least 1 action the user can take( item 17; 84.5 %).” The items with less than 50 % of applicable materials are as follows:“ Number easy to understand( item 5; 49.5 %)”,“ Providing summary( item 10; 19.8 %)”, and“ Explained how to use chart, table, etc.( item 22; 43.2 %).” For the results by source, the three items that exceeded 80 % in all groups were“ No unnecessary information( item 2)”,“ No calculations( item 6)” and“ Use of simple table( item 16)”. Conversely, one item,“ Providing summary( Item 10)”, received less than 50 % of the responses in all groups.
3.3 Readability
For comparisons by source, municipalities( M = 1.8, SD = 0.5) had more difficulty than National Government / Ministry( M = 2.4, SD = 1.2), General Adult( M = 1.9, SD = 0.6) was more difficult than Elementary School Students( M = 2.6, SD = 1.2)( Tab. 3).
3.4 Credibility
When comparing by source, municipalities( M = 4.5, SD = 0.8) and prefectures( M = 4.6, SD = 0.9) scored significantly higher than National Government / Ministry( M = 3.4, SD = 0.9) and Academic Organizations( M = 3.1, SD = 0.9)( Tab. 3).
4 Discussion
The results showed that 71( 61.2 %) of the nuclear disaster prevention materials were“ easy to understand,” 57( 49.1 %) were“ easy to act upon,” 3( 2.6 %) had“ little or no jargon below neutral,” 41( 35.3 %) had“ all references and sources are listed,” and 52( 44.8 %) were“ within 5 years updated” in 41 cases( 35.3 %). Looking at the PEMAT-P by item, more than 90 % of the total number of documents were( 1) not deviating from the purpose of the information,( 2) not requiring calculations, and( 3) having appropriate matrix headings in the tables. On the other hand, less than 50 % of all the materials( 1) contained easy-to-understand figures and tables,( 2) contained a summary or outline of the material, and( 3) explained how to act on the figures and tables. With respect to the inter-rater agreement rate for the PEMAT-P, actionability was sufficiently high; with respect to understandability, it was lower than actionability, but there were no clear criteria for ICC values and it was judged to be acceptable.
These results suggest that the nuclear disaster prevention materials have been updated and that the information provided is consistent with the purpose of the materials. On the other hand, the text of the nuclear disaster prevention materials may not be understood because it is beyond the reading comprehension of the average adult. The results of this study were similar to those of previous studies( Al Balushi et al., 2020; Delaney et al., 2021; Hansberry et al., 2014; Prabhu et al., 2016; Yi et al., 2018). The National Work Group on Cancer and Health( Cotugna et al., 2005), the American Medical Association( Weiss, 2003), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention( CDC)( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention( U. S.) et al., 2009) recommend that