BackgroundHealth Literacy is an individual’s ability to access, understand, and use information to achieve good health. LA County has a vital interest in health literacy because poor health literacy is a stronger predictor of a person's health than age, income, employment status, education level, and race.

In LA County, 53% of working-age adults have low literacy levels that affect their ability to search for and use health information, adopt healthy behaviors, and act on important public health alerts.

Improving health literacy skills requires a comprehensive strategy, including the use of plain language techniques. One of the ways Health Education Administration (HEA) is addressing the challenges posed by low health literacy is by empowering and training DPH staff to incorporate Plain Language in their everyday communication.

Effectiveness of Plain Language Training on LA County Department of Public Health Workforce

SAY IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME

Fred Dominguez, MPH; Susan Srabian, MPH; Jacqueline Valenzuela, MPH, MCHES

To examine whether the Plain Language training developed by HEA was effective in teaching DPH employees Plain Language communication skills.

Objectives

Plain Language Training Evaluation Please complete the following evaluation. Your input will help improve future trainings. Training Objectives:

1. Define plain language. 2. State the average reading level of U.S. adults. 3. List the components of the plain language process. 4. Identify one way to improve oral communication. 5. Identify one way to improve non-verbal communication. 6. Describe one way to become a more effective listener.

Comments: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Strongly

Agree (5)

Agree (4)

Neutral (3)

Disagree (2)

Strongly Disagree

(1)

A) Overall, today’s training objectives were fully met.

B) Overall, I was satisfied with today’s training.

C) Based on my experience today, I would recommend the Plain Language trainings to my colleagues.

D) I will use the information I learned at today’s training in the next year.

What was your percentage BEFORE the session?

What was your percentage AFTER the session?

E) Knowledge about the topics presented today.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

F) Confidence in applying the knowledge or skills presented today.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Methods

Plain Language training is effective in teaching DPH employees Plain Language techniques.

Note: HEA is conducting three and six month evaluations on 2012 results to assess the intermediate and long term effects of HEAs Plain Language training on the DPH workforce.

HEA conducted 8 plain language trainings between during 2011

Plain Language Evaluation Summary 2011 % Average

(A) Strongly agree or agree that training objectives were fully met 96%

(B) Strongly agree or agree that they were satisfied with the training 97%

(C) Would recommend the training to colleagues 97%

(D) Will apply information in the next year 98%

(E) Average % difference in self-reported knowledge 28%

(F) Weighted Average % difference in self-reported confidence* 31.7%

Total # of participants N=176

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

18

23

18

20

37

18

4

11

3

0 0

“Increase in confidence in applying the knowledge or skills presented today,”(F) 2011 Percent Difference in evaluation pre/post response

# o

f P

arti

cip

ants

2011 # of Participants N=152

Weighted Average 31.7%

Plain Language Evaluation: An evaluation was administered after each 2-hour training session to capture participants’ response to presentation format (A – C), their intent to use the information (D), and their knowledge and confidence before and after the training (E, F).

Results were entered into Microsoft Excel worksheets where descriptive statistics (A–D) and Paired t-Test (E,F) were performed to analyze data.

Increase in knowledge about the topics presented today (E)

Pre-test 2011

Post-test 2011

Mean 0.57 0.87Variance 0.05 0.01Observations 140 140Pearson Correlation 0.56

P(T<=t) two-tail 1.49E-34 *significant

Increase in confidence in applying knowledge or skills presented today (F)

Pre-test 2011 Post-test 2011

Mean 0.59 0.88Variance 0.05 0.01Observations 144 144Pearson Correlation

0.53

P(T<=t) two-tail 2.15E-30 *significant

• Analyses shows a significant increase (P<.001) in knowledge (E) and confidence (F) between pre and post test for 2011• Pearson Correlation shows a positive correlation for 2011 (P = 0.56) (E & F)

Fred Dominguez, MPH(213) 351-7858Fdominguez@ph.lacounty.gov

Susan Srabian, MPH(213)351-7823ssrabian@ph.lacounty.gov

Jacqueline Valenzuela, MPH, MCHES(213) 351-7834jvalenzuela@ph.lacounty.gov

Results Analysis

Conclusion

Contact

*Weighted % Average distribution shown in graph below

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%0

5

10

15

20

25

30

01

23

2

10

4

17

27

22

11

“Increase in confidence in applying the knowledge or skills,” 2011 One Year Follow-up

n = 99

% Participant Response

#of

Part

icip

an

ts 73.9 % Weighted Average

% Difference Pre/Post Response