Guidelines for Brochure Evaluation Sample Paper
The educational content part is arguably the most important part of a brochure. This is because the part carries the information that is to be communicated and thus should be handled with utmost care and consideration. When vaguely presented, it could lead to misinformation, ambiguity, or even fail to reach the targeted audience. The brochure in this case is supposed to share information and sensitize about taking care of Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs). This paper therefore to evaluates the brochure for its design and readability.
According to Bernier and Yasko’s model, one of the key points to check in Printed Educational Materials (PEMs) is if the purpose of the material is clear to the target group. In the brochure, the title clearly states that the material is intended to discuss taking care of UTIs. The audience is thus prepared for the kind of content they should expect from the material. Secondly, the material’s learning objectives should relate to the intended outcome (Bernier & Yasko, 1991). Notably, the learning objectives and the intended outcome of the brochure are not indicated on it.
Nevertheless, the title guides that the article will be about how to take care of UTIs, and hence the intended outcome is to make people aware of how to respond to the disease. Fundamentally, the first page of the brochure outlines ways of taking care of infections such as using home remedies, how to avoid them and when to see a health care provider. Such information offers valuable guidance on how to prevent and manage the infection, which is the core purpose of the brochure.
Further, a PEM should only cover the essential information while additional information should be segregated from the main points and given in a special section or the appendices. According to Bernier & Yasko (1991), the main points should be about 3-4 at most. The brochure has tried to adhere to this guideline where main points especially in the subheadings covering the first page are either four or five. However, the section on how to avoid UTI has 6 main points. Regarding supplementary information, the brochure has put sections inside the main material but within a box. Additionally, it is important to ensure that the information provided is verified by persons with experience in the field. The brochure is from ETR associates which is a renowned organization that is largely responsible for designing solutions for health equity.
In their article, Tuot et al, (2013) add more points on how to evaluate the educational content section in a PEM. First, the material should emphasize behavior and not just facts. Notably, the brochure is keen on advising on behaviors such as drinking water and checking on diet. Second, for readability, the material should use easy to read language where the 6th-grade reading level is recommended. Despite having scientific information, the brochure uses simple language that is easy to understand. Finally, the main points should be reviewed at the end of each page. Unfortunately, a review is not provided in the brochure.
Overall, the brochure can be said to have passed the design and readability test required for PEMs. The intended topic to be covered is clearly stated in the title giving the reader a glimpse of what to expect. Additionally, the main points are well outlined and supplementary information is provided in different sections. With the presentation, the brochure can thus be said to have achieved its objectives.
- Bernier, M. J., & Yasko, J. (1991). Designing and evaluating printed education materials: model and instrument development. Patient Education and Counseling, 18(3), 253-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/0738-3991(91)90134-Q
- Tuot, D. S., Davis, E., Velasquez, A., Banerjee, T., & Powe, N. R. (2013). Assessment of printed patient-educational materials for chronic kidney disease. American journal of nephrology, 38(3), 184-194. https://www.karger.com/Article/PDF/354314