Table 3.

PEMAT Understandability and actionability of co-created materials (n = 63)

PEMAT topic/category	% agree
Content	92.1%
The material makes its purpose completely evident.
The material does not include information or content that distracts from its purpose.	90.5%
Word choice & style	93.7%
The material uses common, everyday language.
Medical terms are used only to familiarize the audience with the terms.  When used, medical terms are defined.	93.7%
The material uses the active voice (e.g. action verbs).	95.2%
Use of numbers	96.8%
Numbers appearing in the material are clear and easy to understand.
The material does not expect the user to perform calculations.	96.8%
Organization	93.7%
The material breaks or “chunks” information into short sections.
The material’s sections have informative headers.	95.2%
The material presents information in a logical sequence.	93.7%
The material provides a summary.	96.8%
Layout & design	95.2%
The material uses visual cues to draw attention to key points.
Visual aids	95.2%
The material uses visual aids whenever they could make content more easily understood.
The material’s visual aids reinforce rather than distract from the content.	92.1%
The material’s visual aids have clear titles or captions.	95.2%
The material uses illustrations and photographs that are clear and uncluttered.	88.9%
The material uses simple tables with short and clear row and column headings.	97.5%
Total understandability	94.2%
Actionability	95.2%
The material clearly identifies at least one action the user can take.
The material addresses the user directly when describing actions.	92.1%
The material breaks down any action into manageable, explicit steps.	92.5%
The material provides a tangible tool (e.g. checklists) whenever it could help the user take action.	94.5%
The material explains how to use the charts, graphs, tables, or diagrams to take actions	70.7%
The material uses visual aids whenever they could make it easier to act on the instructions.	92.0%
Total actionability	90.5%