Return-Path: <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g1MKhNu26216; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:43:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:43:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <NEBBJLPFCLHEKAHAAJCJOEBOGKAA.mwillia@emory.edu> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Mark V. Williams, MD" <mwillia@emory.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3577] RE: "The Maturing Partnership" X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; Status: O Content-Length: 4878 Lines: 114 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C1BBB7.E8ADD440 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Because we primarily communicate via the written word (e.g. this listserv). -----Original Message----- From: nifl-health@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-health@nifl.gov]On Behalf Of Dwyoho@aol.com Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 12:06 PM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3574] "The Maturing Partnership" In the latest issue of Focus on Basics, Rima Rudd offers a wonderful summary of the history of the "maturing partnership" of the health and literacy fields to address partient/learner/consumer needs. I find it interesting that she notes that in the 80's and 90's , "The main focus of most of the literacy and health inquiries, however, were studies of the reading level of written health education materials". I think that often on our list this appears to be the case with many of the posted questions and responses. If you agree, why do you think this is? Dr. Rudd asserts: ""...strategies must be two-fold: increase adults' health-related literacy skills and increase health professionals' communication skills". No doubt we can agree that writing plainly is a part of communication, but why does our discussion seem to center so much on crafting written resources? I don't offer this observation as a criticism. I'm interested in what dynamcis bring us again and again to the written word--when the field is flush with so many other aspects of health literacy? Anyone care to speculate? Deborah W. Yoho Executive Director, Greater Columbia Literacy Council Co-Moderator, NIFL-Health Discussion Group 921 Woodrow Street Columbia, SC 29205 803-765-2555 Fax: 803-799-8417 dwyoho@aol.com Agency email: litcola@mail.com ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C1BBB7.E8ADD440 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" = http-equiv=3DContent-Type> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D340074220-22022002>Because we primarily communicate via the = written word=20 (e.g. this listserv).</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV align=3Dleft class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr><FONT = face=3DTahoma=20 size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> = nifl-health@nifl.gov=20 [mailto:nifl-health@nifl.gov]<B>On Behalf Of=20 </B>Dwyoho@aol.com<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, February 22, 2002 12:06=20 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Multiple recipients of list<BR><B>Subject:</B>=20 [NIFL-HEALTH:3574] "The Maturing = Partnership"<BR><BR></DIV></FONT><FONT=20 face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT face=3DArial lang=3D0 size=3D2 = FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF">In the=20 latest issue of Focus on Basics, Rima Rudd offers a wonderful summary = of the=20 history of the "maturing partnership" of the health and literacy = fields to=20 address partient/learner/consumer needs. I find it interesting = that she=20 notes that in the 80's and 90's , "The main focus of most of the = literacy and=20 health inquiries, however, were studies of the reading level of = written health=20 education materials". <BR><BR>I think that often on our list = this =20 appears to be the case with many of the posted questions and = responses. =20 If you agree, why do you think this is?<BR><BR>Dr. Rudd asserts: = ""...strategies must be two-fold: increase adults' = health-related=20 literacy skills and increase health professionals' communication=20 skills". No doubt we can agree that writing plainly is a part of = communication, but why does our discussion seem to center so much on = crafting=20 written resources? I don't offer this observation as a = criticism. =20 I'm interested in what dynamcis bring us again and again to the = written=20 word--when the field is flush with so many other aspects of health=20 literacy? <BR><BR>Anyone care to speculate?<BR><BR></FONT><FONT=20 color=3D#000000 face=3D"Lucida Handwriting" lang=3D0 size=3D2=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" FAMILY=3D"SCRIPT">Deborah W.=20 Yoho<BR></FONT><FONT color=3D#000000 face=3DArial lang=3D0 size=3D2=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF">Executive = Director,=20 Greater Columbia Literacy Council<BR>Co-Moderator, NIFL-Health = Discussion=20 Group<BR>921 Woodrow Street<BR>Columbia, SC = 29205<BR>803-765-2555 =20 Fax: 803-799-8417 dwyoho@aol.com<BR>Agency email: =20 litcola@mail.com</FONT> </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C1BBB7.E8ADD440--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:41:29 EST