114 S. Ito et al.: Radioprotection 2025, 60( 1), 109 – 119
Table 3. Comparison of scale scores by Source.
PEMAT jReadability GQS 1
(> 70) 2 |
Score 1 |
|
min 3 |
|
|
Readability |
Number of words 3 |
Reading time, |
|
Understandability 1 Actionability 1 Understandability(> 70) 2 Actionability
M SD M SD n % AR n % AR M SD Med 25 % 75 % P-value Med 25 % 75 % P-value M SD
1 |
Municipalities |
76.7 |
13.9 |
4 < 1 |
75.2 |
23.2 |
3,4,5 < 1 |
36 |
66.7 |
1.1 |
34 |
63.0 |
2.8 |
1.8 |
0.5 |
1 < 3 |
7035 |
4761 |
9586 |
0.662 |
11.0 |
7.0 |
15.0 |
0.623 |
4.5 |
0.8 |
3,4 < 1 |
2 |
Prefectures |
79.4 |
15.8 |
4 < 2 |
82.1 |
16.2 |
3,4,5 < 2 |
20 |
74.1 |
1.6 |
21 |
77.8 |
3.4 |
1.9 |
0.4 |
|
6225 |
1944 |
14472 |
|
10.0 |
3.0 |
22.0 |
|
4.6 |
0.9 |
3,4,5 < 2 |
3 |
GOV * |
66.9 |
16.2 |
|
23.7 |
28.3 |
3 < 1,2 |
9 |
50.0 |
-1.1 |
1 |
5.6 |
-4.0 |
2.4 |
1.2 |
1 < 3 |
7846 |
4525 |
17319 |
|
12.0 |
7.3 |
26.5 |
|
3.4 |
0.9 |
3 < 1,2 |
4 |
EDU * |
53.3 |
18.5 |
4 < 1,2,5 |
29.7 |
32.8 |
4 < 1,2 |
2 |
15.4 |
-3.6 |
1 |
7.7 |
-3.2 |
1.9 |
0.6 |
|
10523 |
3248 |
13628 |
|
16.0 |
5.0 |
21.0 |
|
3.1 |
0.9 |
4 < 1,2 |
5 |
Businesses |
85.8 |
9.3 |
4 < 5 |
26.7 |
32.7 |
5 < 1,2 |
4 |
100.0 |
1.6 |
0 |
0.0 |
-2.0 |
2.3 |
0.5 |
|
8052 |
3073 |
17294 |
|
12.0 |
4.8 |
26.8 |
|
3.3 |
1.0 |
5 < 2 |
1 ANOVA with a significance level of 5 % was performed, and groups with significant differences were indicated by inequalities.
2 x
2 test was performed to calculate adjusted residuals( AR).
3 Kruskal-Wallis test was performed, but the post test was not performed because there were no significant differences; GQS = Global Quality Scoring; Significant difference if adjusted residuals are greater than or less than 1. 96( p < 0. 05). * GOV: National Government / Ministry. EDU: Academic Organizations. patient information materials be readable at a 6th to 8th grade level or lower. Although no studies have evaluated the readability, understandability, and actionability of nuclear disaster materials, a study of patient education materials on radiation therapy reported that adult and pediatric patient education materials tended to be above the recommended reading level( Al Balushi et al., 2020; Delaney et al., 2021; Hansberry et al., 2014; Prabhu et al., 2016; Yi et al., 2018). In nuclear emergency preparedness materials, authors use easyto-understand illustrations, definitions and explanations of technical terms, and word substitutions to promote reader understanding, but these explanations are also considered difficult to understand. In addition, numerical values used in figures and tables may also be difficult to understand. When preparing materials for nuclear disaster prevention, it may be necessary to improve the readability level of text and numerical values by using a text difficulty evaluation index such as jReadability, incorporating the opinions of nonspecialist users of the materials and summarizing and condensing the content as appropriate. In addition, although the figures and tables are detailed and accurate, it is difficult to understand their meaning and how to apply them to one’ s actions and daily life. In addition to detailed versions of these figures and tables, it would be beneficial to create summaries and abstract versions of important information. Thus it would be very beneficial that the International Committee on Radiological Protection( ICRP) future recommendations be easily understood by the average adult( Clement et al., 2021, 2022).
In terms of comparisons among sources, the municipal and prefectural materials were significantly easier to understand, more actionable, and of higher credibility than the academic organizations. The municipalities and prefectures were more likely to provide information on how to deal with specific problems( actionability). Municipalities and prefectures create nuclear disaster preparedness materials based on the Manual for Preparation of Regional Disaster Prevention Plans( Nuclear Disaster Preparedness Chapter) by the Cabinet Office in Japan( Cabinet Office and Fire and Disaster Management Agency, 2013). Therefore, many of the materials describe specific actions to be taken in the event of a disaster. On the other hand, the materials prepared by the national government, ministries, and agencies may not include the actionable items because there is no manual for these organizational bodies to prepare such materials, and the actions that should be taken in the event of a disaster differ depending on the residential area. In addition, national and provincial government materials are considered to contain a lot of specialized information, as their themes vary from basic knowledge of radiation, survey results after the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, and information on reconstruction in Fukushima Prefecture. Despite the above, the Japanese text difficulty level for the municipal materials was significantly higher than that for the national materials. In addition, according to the jReadability criteria( Lee, 2016; Lee et al., 2023), a score of 1.5 – 2.4 is classified in the“ difficult” category, and it seems reasonable to interpret all of them as having a high level of text difficulty, as in previous studies( Al Balushi et al., 2020; Delaney et al., 2021; Hansberry et al., 2014; Prabhu et al., 2016; Yi et al., 2018).
The strengths of the present study are as follows. To our knowledge, this is the first study to quantitatively analyze the