Evaluation of the readability, understandability, and actionability of COVID-19 public health messaging in Atlantic Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Effective communication of COVID-19 information involves clear messaging to ensure that readers comprehend and can easily apply behavioral recommendations. This study evaluated the readability, understandability, and actionability of public health resources produced by the four provincial governments in Atlantic Canada (New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island). Methods A total of 400 web-based resources were extracted in June 2022 and evaluated using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, CDC Clear Communication Index, and the Patient and Education Materials Assessment Tool. Descriptive statistics and a comparison of mean scores were conducted across provinces and type of resources (e.g., text, video). Results Overall, readability of resources across the region exceeded recommendations, requiring an average Grade 11 reading level. Videos and short form communication resources, including infographics, were the most understandable and actionable. Mean scores across provinces differed significantly on each tool; Newfoundland and Labrador produced materials that were most readable, understandable, and actionable, followed by New Brunswick. Discussion Recommendations on improving clarity of COVID-19 resources are described. Careful consideration in the development of publicly available resources is necessary in supporting COVID-19 knowledge uptake, while reducing the prevalence of misinformation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".