oa Designing bowel preparation patient instructions to improve colon cancer detection

References

1. American National Standard
   American National Standard (2002) ANSI Z535.4-2002. American National Standard for product safety signs and labels. Retrieved fromwww.davis-inc.com/expert/docs/z535p4-2002.pdf
   [Google Scholar]
2. Bodenheimer, T., & Sinsky, C.
   (2014) From triple to quadruple aim: Care of the patient requires care of the provider. Analysis of Family Medicine, 12(6), 573–576. doi:  10.1370/afm.1713
   https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1713 [Google Scholar]
3. Desaulniers, D. R.
   (1987) Layout, organization and the effectiveness of consumer product warnings. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 31st Annual Meeting (pp.56–60). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. doi:  10.1177/154193128703100112
   https://doi.org/10.1177/154193128703100112 [Google Scholar]
4. Desaulniers, D. R., Gillan, D. J., & Rudisill, M.
   (1988) The effects of format in computer based procedure displays. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 32nd Annual Meeting (pp.291–295). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. doi:  10.1177/154193128803200511
   https://doi.org/10.1177/154193128803200511 [Google Scholar]
5. Frascara, J.
   (1999) Cognition, emotion and other inescapable dimensions of human experience. Visible Language, 33(1), 74–89.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Frascara, J.
   (2006) Typography and the visual design of warnings. InM. Wogater (Ed.), The handbook of warnings (pp.385–405). London, UK: Erlbaum.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Frascara, J., & Noël, G.
   (2010) Evaluation and design of a blood components transfusion request form. Information Design Journal, 18(3), 241–249. doi:  10.1075/idj.18.3.06fra
   https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.18.3.06fra [Google Scholar]
8. Frascara, J.
   (2017) Design, and design education: How can they get together?Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 16(1), 125–131. doi:  10.1386/adch.16.1.125_1
   https://doi.org/10.1386/adch.16.1.125_1 [Google Scholar]
9. Grether, W. F., & Baker, C. A.
   (1972) Visual presentation of information. InH. P. Van Cott & R. G. Kinkade (Eds.), Human engineering guide to equipment design (pp.49–127). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Hartley, J.
    (2004) Designing instructional and informational text. InD. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp.917–947). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Hochuli, J.
    (2008) Detail in typography. London: Hyphen Press.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Janssen, D., & Neutelings, R.
    (2001) Reading and writing public documents. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ddcs.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ddcs.1 [Google Scholar]
13. Klare, G. R.
    (1984) Readability and comprehension. InR. Easterby & H. Zwaga (Eds.), Information design (pp.479–495). London, UK: Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
14. King-Marshall, E. C., Mueller, N., Dailey, A., Barnett, T. E., George Jr, T. J., Sultan, S., & Curbow, B.
    (2016) “It is just another test they want to do”: Patient and caregiver understanding of the colonoscopy procedure. Patient education and counseling, 99(4), 651–658. doi:  10.1016/j.pec.2015.10.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.10.021 [Google Scholar]
15. Lewis, J., & Ritchie, J.
    (2003) Generalising from qualitative research. Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Mayer, R. E.
    (2005) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816819
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819 [Google Scholar]
17. McNamara, T.
    (2005) Semantic priming: Perspectives from memory and word recognition. London, UK: Taylor & Francis Group. 10.4324/9780203338001
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203338001 [Google Scholar]
18. Miller, G. A.
    (1994) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 101(2), 343–352. 10.1037/0033‑295X.101.2.343
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.2.343 [Google Scholar]
19. Ness, R. M., Manam, R., Hoen, H., & Chalasani, N.
    (2001) Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The American journal of gastroenterology, 96(6), 1797. doi:  10.1111/j.1572‑0241.2001.03874.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.03874.x [Google Scholar]
20. Rousseau, D. M., & Gunia, B. C.
    (2016) Evidence-based practice: the psychology of EBP implementation. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 667–692. doi:  10.1146/annurev‑psych‑122414‑033336
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033336 [Google Scholar]
21. Slattery, T. J., & Rayner, K.
    (2009) The influence of text legibility on eye movements during reading. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(8), 1129–1148. doi:  10.1002/acp.1623
    https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1623 [Google Scholar]
22. Smith, S.
    (1984) Lettersize and legibility. InR. Easterby & H. Zwaga (Eds.), Information design (117–186). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Schriver, K.
    (2013) What do technical communicators need to know about information design?InJ. Johnson & S. Selber (Eds.), Solving problems in technical communication (pp.386–427). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Shaver, E. F., & Wogalter, M. S.
    (2003) A comparison of older vs. newer over-the-counter (OTC) nonprescription drug labels on search time accuracy. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 47th Annual Meeting (pp.826–830). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Smith, S. L.
    (1984) Letter size and legibility. InR. Easterby & H. Zwaga (Eds.), Information design (171–186). London: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Sweller, J.
    (1988) Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2): 257–285. doi:  10.1016/0364‑0213(88)90023‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7 [Google Scholar]
27. Tinker, M. A.
    (1963) Legibility of print. Ames, IA: Iowa University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Waller, R.
    (2011) What makes a good document? The criteria we use. Reading, UK: University of Reading. Retrieved fromwww.reading.ac.uk/web/files/simplification/sc2criteriagooddoc-7.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
29. Waller, R., & Waller, J.
    (2015) Transforming government letters: Design and writing working together. InJ. Frascara (Ed.), Information design as principled action: Making information accessible, relevant, understandable, and usable (210–222). Champaign, IL: Common Ground.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Wexner, S. D., Beck, D. E., Baron, T. H., Fanelli, R. D., Hyman, N., Shen, B., & Wasco, K. E.
    (2006) A consensus document on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: Prepared by a task force from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques, 20(7), 1147–1160. doi:  10.1016/j.gie.2006.03.918
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2006.03.918 [Google Scholar]
31. Wogalter, M. S., Howe, J. E., Sifuentes, A. H., & Luginuhl, J.
    (1999) On the adequacy of legal documents: factors that influence informed consent. Ergonomics, 42(4), 593–613. doi:  10.1080/001401399185504
    https://doi.org/10.1080/001401399185504 [Google Scholar]
32. Wogalter, M. S., & Vigilante, W. J. Jr.
    (2003) Effects of label format on knowledge acquisition and perceived readability by younger and older adults. Ergonomics, 46(4), 327–344. doi:  10.1080/0014013021000048006
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0014013021000048006 [Google Scholar]
33. Wright, P.
    (1994) Enhancing the usability of written instructions. Proceedings of Public Graphics (pp.26–30). Lunteren, The Netherlands: Delft University and Utrecht University.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Wright, P., & Barnard, P.
    (1975) ‘Just fill in this form’: A review for designers. Applied Ergonomics, 6(4), 213–220. doi:  10.1016/0003‑6870(75)90113‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-6870(75)90113-1 [Google Scholar]