Test the invitation before you send it

What we found in the news

The third edition of AHRQ’s health-literacy materials guidance (opens in a new tab), reviewed in April 2024, includes this advice:

“Do not wait until the product is finished before you assess it.”

— AHRQ, Tool 11

The resource concerns information used in healthcare. We are considering how the same starting question can help a community organization prepare an invitation that people can understand and use. It is guidance, not evidence that our example has improved participation.

Why this matters to us

A carefully written invitation can still leave someone wondering what to do next.

Consider a hypothetical program inviting people to an introductory afternoon. The draft explains the organization’s mission and lists several activities. The booking instruction appears near the end, beside a telephone number whose opening hours are unclear.

The team knows the program well. A person receiving the invitation does not have that background.

At genus, we want the first contact to make room for curiosity. Someone should be able to find out what the offer involves before deciding whether it fits them.

Start with the decision the reader needs to make

Ask what the person needs to understand now. Is this an invitation to attend, an offer to discuss options, or a request to register interest? Those are different steps.

Describe the practical details in ordinary language. Explain where the activity takes place, what participation involves, and how someone can ask about access or support.

Avoid making the reader decode internal program names. A familiar label inside an organization can be an unexplained term outside it.

In our hypothetical invitation, a short description of the afternoon may be more useful than a list of service departments. The person can then decide whether to ask more, book a place, or pass.

Try the draft with people who might use it

Invite a small, varied group to look at the material while there is still time to change it. Explain that the team is reviewing the invitation, not testing the reader.

Ask people to describe what they think is being offered and what they would do next. Notice where they look for the date, place, cost, or contact route. A polite comment that it looks good may leave those questions unanswered.

Use the format people will actually receive. A clear printed page can become difficult to read on a phone. A link can be easy to overlook in a long message.

Offer appropriate ways to contribute. Someone may prefer to discuss the draft aloud or use a different format. Do not assume one person can represent everyone with a particular access need.

Check the route after the invitation

Follow the next step yourself and with suitable user input. Does the telephone route reach someone who knows about the activity? Does the form ask for information the person can reasonably provide?

If a place requires confirmation, say what happens after an inquiry. An invitation should not imply that completing a form guarantees attendance when staff still need to review the arrangement.

Check the people behind the response. A clearer invitation may generate questions that require time and knowledge. Make sure the team is prepared to answer them.

After sending it, review the questions that return. Repeated confusion can reveal a missing detail or an unclear instruction. Use that learning in the next version while preserving information that people found helpful.

What this means for the people you serve

An invitation should support a choice. People can be interested without being ready to commit, and they can decline without having to explain. Clear information and a usable question route help them decide on their own terms.

The genus connection

Today, configured genus content tools can help organizations prepare resources and present them through supported community channels. Available feedback features can also support suitable questions about the experience.

Those content and staff workspaces depend on the organization’s configuration and review process. A published resource is not automatically understandable or accessible to every person. We want the tools to support thoughtful preparation, with real review of the words, format, and next step.

One question for your next team meeting

Could someone unfamiliar with our program explain the next step after reading the invitation we plan to send?