Abstract:What is known and objectivePatient information leaflets (PILs) or Patient Leaflets (PLs) formally accompany dispensed medicines and are intended to provide the patient with information on how to use the medicine safely. To date, there have been no studies that have examined the readability of meningococcal vaccine patient‐facing information, including information contained within the vaccine PIL. Given the role of pharmacists in presenting PILs to patients, it was, therefore, the aim of this study to quantitatively analyse the readability of Patient Leaflets, which accompany licensed meningococcal vaccines in the UK and US and to compare PILs to vaccine pharmaceutical manufacturers' summary of product characteristics (SPC), as well as other patient‐facing vaccine‐related information. MethodsFive sources of meningococcal vaccine information were examined for the licensed meningococcal vaccines in the UK (Bexsero, Menveo, Menitorix, Trumenba, Nimenrix & NeisVac‐C) and in the United States (Bexsero, Menveo, Trumenba, Menactra, Menomune‐A/C/Y/W‐135, Menquadfi), including as follows: (i) SPC (Electronic Medicines Compendium, UK), (ii) Package Insert (FDA; USA), (iii) Patient Leaflet (Electronic Medicines Compendium, UK), (iv) Vaccine pharmaceutical websites and (v) government web resources. Readability was examined employing 10 readability metrics, including the Flesch Reading Ease and the Flesch‐Kincaid Grade level. Results and discussionThe information source with the greatest readability scores was the UK Patient Leaflet, which had a mean Flesch Reading Ease score of 58.1 and a mean Flesch‐Kincaid Grade score of 7.3, followed by the US Department of Health & Human Services patient‐facing website for vaccines (55.9 & 8, respectively), followed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Vaccine Information Statement (47.3 & 9.4, respectively). Pharmaceutical patient‐facing websites for meningococcal vaccines had mean scores of 44.6 and 9.9, respectively. When compared with UK Patient Leaflets, pharmaceutical websites were statistically different with poorer readability with both Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch‐Kincaid Grade Level indices (p = 0.02 & p = 0.04, respectively). What is new and conclusionPharmaceutical meningococcal vaccine PILs were easily read and had statistically significant good readability scores in comparison with vaccine SPCs and US Package Inserts, pharmaceutical product websites and other government patient‐facing meningococcal vaccine information. Preparation of patient‐facing materials of a complex topic, such as describing meningococcal vaccines, is difficult to accomplish. Although there is a plurality of sources of information through websites and social media, PILs are one of the few sources that are provided directly to patients. This underpins the potential importance of PILs and the importance of their readability. Adoption of readability calculators and scrutiny of materials for their readability will help authors develop materials with improved understanding for vaccine recipients, potentially leading to improved health literacy and vaccine uptake. Renewed efforts should be sought to promote the information within the PIL, thereby maximizing the value of this resource with vaccine recipients, their carers and family.

Content and readability of patient educational materials about neuromodulation for childhood movement disorders

Readability, Content, and Quality of Online Patient Education Materials on Anesthesia and Neurotoxicity in the Pediatric Population

Evaluating the Readability of Patient Education Materials for Anterior Vertebral Body Tethering, Distraction-Based Methods, and Posterior Spinal Fusion for the Treatment of Pediatric Spinal Deformity

Assessing parental comprehension of online resources on childhood pain

Readability assessment of patient educational materials for pediatric spinal conditions from top academic orthopedic institutions

An Evaluation of the Design of Multimedia Patient Education Materials in Musculoskeletal Health Care: Systematic Review

Readability and content gaps in online epilepsy surgery materials as potential health literacy and shared-decision-making barriers

Web-Based Information on Spinal Cord Stimulation: Qualitative Assessment of Publicly Accessible Online Resources

Expanding Accessibility in Cleft Care: The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Improving Literacy of Alveolar Bone Grafting Information

Assessing the Readability of Online English and Spanish Resources for Polydactyly and Syndactyly

Not So Patient‐Friendly: Patient Education Materials in Rheumatology and Internal Medicine Fall Short of Nationally Recommended Readability Benchmarks in the United States

Assessing readability of online patient educational material on concussion and return to play

Using Large Language Models to Generate Educational Materials on Childhood Glaucoma

Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models

Improving meningococcal MenACWY and 4CMenB/meningococcal group B vaccine‐related health literacy in patients: Importance of readability of pharmaceutical Patient Leaflets

Assessing the Readability of Online Patient Education Resources Related to Neophallus Reconstruction

Readability of online patient education material for foregut surgery

Large language models: a new frontier in paediatric cataract patient education

Pediatric neuromodulation for drug-resistant epilepsy: Survey of current practices, techniques, and outcomes across US epilepsy centers

How readable the online patient education materials of intensive and critical care societies: Assessment of the readability

Navigating Scar Care: An Evaluation of Scar Treatment Patient Education Materials