S. Ito et al.: Radioprotection 2025, 60( 1), 109 – 119 117 on risk communication after a nuclear accident, and the importance of a two-way approach between victims and experts has been emphasized( Bertho et al., 2021; Thu Zar et al., 2022). In the future, it will be important to create materials that are accessible to“ average adults " and others.
5 Conclusion
The present study quantitatively evaluated the understandability, actionability, readability, and credibility of nuclear disaster prevention materials for the Japanese public. Municipal and prefectural materials were easy to understand and act upon, and the credibility of the materials was high, but the Japanese text difficulty level for most materials was also high. In creating or revising materials, it is considered important to reduce the difficulty level of the textaccordingtoitsdifficulty rating index, to incorporate the opinions of local residents as users, and to add summaries as appropriate.
Acknowledgments
This study used the“ Japanese Sentence Difficulty Discrimination System”( http:// jreadability. net), a product of a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research( Project No. 25370573).
Funding
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP 24K06389 and the Program of the Network-type Joint Usage / Research Center for Radiation Disaster Medical Science.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Data availability statement
The datasets generated and / or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request
Author contribution statement
Ito conceived of the paper, collected and analyzed data, and wrote the paper; Okuhara, Okada and Kiuchi conceived and designed the study and revised the paper; Furukawa conceived of the study, collected data, and revised the paper. In addition, all authors have final review of the manuscript and are responsible for the content of the article of the paper.
References
Al Balushi M, Ghosh S, Debenham B. 2020. The readability of online Canadian radiotherapy patient educational materials. J Med Imag Radiat Sci 51: 617 – 623.
Alwani MM, Campa KA, Svenstrup TJ, Bandali EH, Anthony BP. 2021. An appraisal of printed online education materials on spasmodic dysphonia. J Voic 35: 659. e651 – 659. e659.
Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, Halpern DJ, Crotty K. 2011. Low Health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review [ Review ]. Ann Intern Med 155: 97.
Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, Algazy JI, Kravitz RL, Broder MS, Kanouse DE, Muñoz JA, Puyol JA, Lara M, Watkins KE, Yang H, McGlynn EA. 2001. Health information on the internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA 285: 2612 – 2621.
Bernard A, Langille M, Hughes S, Rose C, Leddin D, Veldhuyzen van Zanten S. 2007. A systematic review of patient inflammatory bowel disease information resources on the World Wide Web. Am J Gastroenterol 102: 2070 – 2077.
Bertho JM, Gabillaud-Poillion F, Reuter C, Rivière O, Lachaume JL. 2021. Involvement of stakeholders during the preparedness phase of post-accident situation management. Ann ICRP 50: 160 – 166.
Cabinet Office, & Fire and Disaster Management Agency. 2013. Manual for Preparation of Regional Disaster Prevention Plans( Nuclear Disaster Preparedness). Retrieved from https:// www8. cao. go. jp / genshiryoku _ bousai / keikaku / keikaku. html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention( U. S.), Office of the Associate Director for Communication, & Strategic and Proactive Communication Branch. 2009. Scientific and technical information simply put. Retrieved from https:// stacks. cdc. gov / view / cdc / 11938 / cdc _ 11938 _ DS1. pdf
Clement C, Rühm W, Harrison J, Applegate K, Cool D, Larsson CM, Cousins C, Lochard J, Bouffler S, Cho K, Kai M, Laurier D, Liu S, Romanov S. 2022. Keeping the ICRP recommendations fit for purpose. J Radiol Prot, 41: 1390 – 1409.
Clement C, Rühm W, Harrison J, Applegate K, Cool D, Larsson CM, Cousins C, Lochard J, Bouffler S, Cho K, Kai M, Laurier D, Liu S, Romanov S. 2021. Maintenir les recommandations de la CIPR adaptées aux besoins. Radioprotection, 57: 93 – 106.
Cotugna N, Vickery CE, Carpenter-Haefele KM. 2005. Evaluation of literacy level of patient education pages in health-related journals. J Community Health 3: 213 – 219.
Delaney FT, Doinn TÓ, Broderick JM, Stanley E. 2021. Readability of patient education materials related to radiation safety: What are the implications for patient-centred radiology care? Insights Imaging, 12. https:// doi. org / 10.1186 / s13244-021-01094-3
Furukawa E, Okuhara T, Okada H, Shirabe R, Yokota R, Iye R, Kiuchi, T. 2022. Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Validation of the Japanese Version of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool( PEMAT). Int J Environ Res Public Health, 19( 23). https:// doi. org / 10.3390 / ijerph192315763
Gauntlett L, Amlôt, R., Rubin GJ. 2019. How to inform the public about protective actions in a nuclear or radiological incident: a systematic review [ Review ]. Lancet Psychiatry, 6( 1), 72 – 80. https:// doi. org / 10.1016 / s2215-0366( 18) 30173-1
Goto A, Lai AY, Kumagai A, Koizumi S, Yoshida K, Yamawaki K, Rudd RE. 2018. Collaborative Processes of Developing A Health Literacy Toolkit: A Case from Fukushima after the Nuclear Accident. J Health Commun, 23( 2), 200 – 206. https:// doi. org / 10.1080 / 10810730.2018.1423650
Goto E, Ishikawa H, Okuhara T, Kiuchi, T. 2019. Relationship of health literacy with utilization of health-care services in a general