1.Office for National Statistics. Statistical bulletin. Internet access – households and individuals: 2016. What the internet is used for and types of purchases made by adults (aged 16 or over) 2016. Accessed on 20th August 2017.
Dutton, W, Blank, G. Next Generation Users: The Internet in Britain 2011. Oxford, England: Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, 2011.
Kuczera, M, Field, S, Windisch, H C. Building Skills for All: A Review of England. OECD Skills Studies. Paris: OECD, 2016.
Confederation of British Industry (CBI). Inspiring Growth. CBI/Pearson Education and Skills Survey 2015. London: CBI, 2015.
Wolfe, B, Dobres, J, Kosovicheva, A, Rosenholtz, R, Reimer, B. Age-related differences in the legibility of degraded text. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 2016; 1 (22): 1–13.
Waller, E. What Makes a Good Document? The Criteria We Use. Technical Paper 2. Simplification Centre. Reading, UK: University of Reading, 2011.
Kang, T, Elhadad, N, Weng, C. Initial readability assessment of clinical trial eligibility criteria. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2015; 2015: 687–696.
Janan, D, Wray, D. Readability: the limitations of an approach through formulae. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Manchester, Manchester, England, 2012.
Crossley, S A, Skalicky, S, Dascalu, M, McNamara, D S, Kyle, K. Predicting text comprehension, processing, and familiarity in adult readers: new approaches to readability formulas. Discourse Proces 2017; 54 (5–6): 340–359.
Bailin, A, Grafstein, A. The linguistic assumptions underlying readability formulae: a critique. Lang Commun 2001; 21: 285–301.
Doak, C C, Doak, L G, Root, J H. Teaching Patients with Low Literacy Skills, 2nd edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1996.
Flinton, D. Readability and legibility of printed information leaflets in radiotherapy. J Radioth Pract 2008; 7: 186–187.
Zouh, S, Jeong, H, Green, P A. How consistent are the best-known readability equations in estimating the readability of design standards? IEEE Trans Prof Commun 2017; 60 (1): 97–111.
Wang, L-W, Miller, M J, Schmitt, M R, Wen, F K. Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: application, results, and recommendations. Res Soc Admin Pharm 2013; 9 (5): 503–516.
Blair, J. Assessing the value of the internet in health improvement. Nursing Times 2004; 100 (35): 28–30.
Penson, R T, Benson, R C, Parles, K, Chabner, B A, Lynch, T J Jr. Virtual connections: internet health care. Oncologist 2002; 7: 555–568.
Hansberry, D R, Agarwal, N, Baker, S R. Health literacy and online educational resources: an opportunity to educate patients. Am J Roentgenol 2015; 204: 111–116.
23.International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration. Criteria for judging the quality of patient decision aids, 2005. http://ipdas.ohri.ca/IPDAS_checklist.pdf. Accessed on 20th August 2017.
Hansberry, D R, Ann John, A, John, E, Agarwal, N, Gonzales, S F, Baker, S R. A critical review of the readability of online patient education resources from RadiologyInfo.Org. Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202 (3): 566–575.
Fitzsimmons, P R, Michael, B D, Hulley, J L, Scott, G O. A readability assessment of online Parkinson’s disease information. J R Coll Physicians Edinb 2010; 2010 (40): 292–296.
Trivedi, H, Trivedi, A, Hannan, M F. Readability and comprehensibility of over-the counter medication labels. Renal Failure 2014; 36 (3): 473–477.
Weiss, K D, Vargas, C R, Ho., O A, Chuang, D J, Weiss, J, Lee, B T. Readability analysis of online resources related to lung cancer. J Surg Res 2016; 206 (1): 90–97.
Narwani, V, Nalamada, K, Lee, M, Kothari, P, Lakhani, R. Readability and quality assessment of internet-based patient education materials related to laryngeal cancer. Head Neck 2015; 28 (4): 601–605.
Harwood, A, Harrison, J E. How readable are orthodontic patient information leaflets? J Orthod 2004; 31 (3): 210–219.
Pothier, L, Day, R, Harris, C, Pothier, D D. Readability statistics of patient information leaflets in a Speech and Language Therapy Department. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2008; 43 (6): 712–772.