ABOP, the automatic patient information leaflet optimizer: Evaluation of a tool in development

Franck, Maarten Charles J.; Foulon, Veerle; Vaerenbergh, Leona Van

doi:10.1016/j.pec.2011.04.025

Cited by 9 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…From the twelve exploratory studies with patients (or potential patients) receiving medicines (group B), ten were conducted to evaluate participant comprehension (usability and/or legibility tests, 1 , 2 , 6 , 8 , 11 , 12 , 19 , 21 , 25 , 26 or studies to specifically evaluate participant comprehension of the manner in which ADR were presented. 18 , 17 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Readability of medicinal package leaflets: a systematic review

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE To review studies on the readability of package leaflets of medicinal products for human use.METHODS We conducted a systematic literature review between 2008 and 2013 using the keywords “Readability and Package Leaflet” and “Readability and Package Insert” in the academic search engine Biblioteca do Conhecimento Online, comprising different bibliographic resources/databases. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses criteria were applied to prepare the draft of the report. Quantitative and qualitative original studies were included. Opinion or review studies not written in English, Portuguese, Italian, French, or Spanish were excluded.RESULTS We identified 202 studies, of which 180 were excluded and 22 were enrolled [two enrolling healthcare professionals, 10 enrolling other type of participants (including patients), three focused on adverse reactions, and 7 descriptive studies]. The package leaflets presented various readability problems, such as complex and difficult to understand texts, small font size, or few illustrations. The main methods to assess the readability of the package leaflet were usability tests or legibility formulae. Limitations with these methods included reduced number of participants; lack of readability formulas specifically validated for specific languages (e.g., Portuguese); and absence of an assessment on patients literacy, health knowledge, cognitive skills, levels of satisfaction, and opinions.CONCLUSIONS Overall, the package leaflets presented various readability problems. In this review, some methodological limitations were identified, including the participation of a limited number of patients and healthcare professionals, the absence of prior assessments of participant literacy, humor or sense of satisfaction, or the predominance of studies not based on role-plays about the use of medicines. These limitations should be avoided in future studies and be considered when interpreting the results.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Readability of medicinal package leaflets: a systematic review

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An important prerequisite for proper self‐test use is an instruction leaflet that provides good quality information on how to use the self‐test. Research regarding patient information leaflets (PILs) indicates that good quality PILs improve a patient's retention of the information and increase the likelihood that the patient will use this information appropriately . Despite European legislations to improve the quality of PILs (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite European legislations to improve the quality of PILs (e.g. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1171&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en), studies have shown that the overall quality of PILs is insufficient, for instance in that scientific medical terms are frequently used, clear instructions are lacking and the use of long paragraphs make the texts hard to understand . Given these findings and the lack of knowledge about the quality of the information provided with home test kits, combined with the fact that self‐tests are easily available and widely used, it is important to know if the instructions accompanying self‐tests are of good quality and whether they fit in with the actual use of information by consumers and their needs concerning self‐test information.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research regarding patient information leaflets (PILs) indicates that good quality PILs improve a patient's retention of the information and increase the likelihood that the patient will use this information appropriately. [10][11][12] Despite European legislations to improve the quality of PILs (e.g. http://europa.eu/rapid/ pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1171& format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&gui Language=en), studies have shown that the overall quality of PILs is insufficient, for instance in that scientific medical terms are frequently used, clear instructions are lacking and the use of long paragraphs make the texts hard to understand.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…http://europa.eu/rapid/ pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/1171& format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&gui Language=en), studies have shown that the overall quality of PILs is insufficient, for instance in that scientific medical terms are frequently used, clear instructions are lacking and the use of long paragraphs make the texts hard to understand. 10,[12][13][14] Given these findings and the lack of knowledge about the quality of the information provided with home test kits, combined with the fact that self-tests are easily available and widely used, [2][3][4]5 it is important to know if the instructions accompanying selftests are of good quality and whether they fit in with the actual use of information by consumers and their needs concerning self-test information. The purpose of the present study was therefore to assess whether the instruction leaflets that are included in diagnostic self-test kits for home use satisfy the consumers' information needs regarding self-testing and whether this information complies with medical guidelines.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations