Evaluation of quality and readability of over-the-counter medication package inserts

Zheng, Yifan; Tang, Yan; Tseng, Hung; Chang, Tao-Hsing; Li, Lanping; Chen, Pan; Tang, Yubo; Lin, Xiaobin; Chen, Xiao; Tang, Ke-Jing

doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2022.03.012

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, the findings of these studies indicate that these materials are of questionable quality. The majority of materials are lacking in quality and reliability which could lead to misinformation and also user needs are not met in terms of quality (Arif & Ghezzi, 2018; Azer et al, 2018; Barnes & Davies, 2015; Barrow et al, 2018; Butler & Foster, 2003; Ghodasra et al, 2018; Hughes et al, 2019; Joury et al, 2018; Rofaiel & Chande, 2018; Ronfeldt et al, 2018; Tran & Tsui, 2021; Treffalls et al, 2022; Vargas et al, 2017; Venosa et al, 2021; Vicente‐Neira et al, 2022; Yan et al, 2021; D. F. Zhang et al, 2022; H. Zhang et al, 2022; Zheng et al, 2022).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Item Criteria Definition Williams et al, 2016;Wiriyakijja et al, 2016;Wolf et al, 2012;Wong & Levi, 2017a, 2017bYan et al, 2021;Yin et al, 2013;D. F. Zhang et al, 2022;Zheng et al, 2022;Tavares et al, 2018). T A B L E 3 (Continued)…”

Section: Item Criteria Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…White et al, 2013;Winterbottom et al, 2007;Wolf et al, 2012;Wong & Levi, 2017a, 2017bYeung & Mortensen, 2012;Yan et al, 2021;D. F. Zhang et al, 2022;Zheng et al, 2022).…”

Section: Acknowledgementsunclassified

See 2 more Smart Citations

Patient education information material assessment criteria: A scoping review

Ahmadzadeh

Bahrami

Zare–Farashbandi

et al. 2023

Health Info Libraries J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Patient education information material (PEIM) is an essential component of patient education programs in increasing patients' ability to cope with their diseases. Therefore, it is essential to consider the criteria that will be used to prepare and evaluate these resources.Objective: This paper aims to identify these criteria and recognize the tools or methods used to evaluate them.Methods: National and international databases and indexing banks, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, the Cochrane Library, Magiran, SID and ISC, were searched for this review. Original or review articles, theses, short surveys, and conference papers published between January 1990 and June 2022 were included.Results: Overall, 4688 documents were retrieved, of which 298 documents met the inclusion criteria. The criteria were grouped into 24 overarching criteria. The most frequently used criteria were readability, quality, suitability, comprehensibility and understandability. Conclusion: This review has provided empirical evidence to identify criteria, tools, techniques or methods for developing or evaluating a PEIM. The authors suggest that developing a comprehensive tool based on these findings is critical for evaluating the overall efficiency of PEIM using effective criteria.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Item Criteria Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patient education information material assessment criteria: A scoping review

Ahmadzadeh

Bahrami

Zare–Farashbandi

et al. 2023

Health Info Libraries J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A drug package insert is a paper that accompanies a medicine and provides information on how the drug should be administered and what side effects patients may experience (8). Reading the package insert of drugs is one of the important factors affecting knowledge and behavior in drug use (9).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psikiyatride Yaygın Olarak Kullanılan Antidepresan İlaç Prospektüslerinin Okunabilirliğinin Değerlendirilmesi

AKKUŞ

2023

Osmangazi̇ Journal of Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The understanding of a written text is directly related to the readability level of that text. Readability can be measured objectively using specific formulas. In this study, we aimed to determine the readability level of the drug package inserts of antidepressant drugs. A total of 51 drug package inserts were grouped according to antidepressant types. Title and drug license information was removed from the texts for standardization. These were evaluated using the Ateşman, Bezirci–Yılmaz and Çetinkaya–Uzun readability formulas, applicable to Turkish texts. The average Ateşman readability score was determined as 71.4. Accordingly, it was seen that the drug package inserts require a grade 7-8 of education for readability. The readability level of the Bezirci-Yılmaz formula was, similarly, of grade 7-8 (primary education) level. The Çetinkaya-Uzun readability score was calculated as 45.4 and an 8-9th grade level was determined. It was ascertained that the drug package inserts were readable at the secondary education (7th-9th grade) level on average. Considering the average education level in Turkey, it was established that the readability level was therefore high. We believe that writing the drug package inserts based on the average education level will increase readability and therefore intelligibility.

show abstract

“…25 Numerous studies have validated its reliability and practicality in the Chinese health domain. 26,27 Results can be interpreted using the Flesch-Kincaid English readability assessment method: the higher the grade, the greater the text complexity. Quantitative natural language processing and text mining tools serve as valuable supplements to subjective human evaluations.…”

Section: Objective Evaluation Simplified Chinese Readability Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Large Language Models (LLMs) vs. Specialist Doctors: A Comparative Study on Health Information in specific medical domains. (Preprint)

Yan,

Liu,

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Although Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT show promise in providing specialized information, their quality require further evaluation, especially considering that these models are trained on internet text and the quality of health-related information available online varies widely. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT in the context of patient education for individuals with chronic diseases, comparing it with that of industry experts to elucidate its strengths and limitations. METHODS This evaluation was conducted by analyzing the responses of ChatGPT and specialist doctors to questions posed by patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD), comparing their performance in terms of subjective accuracy, empathy, completeness, and overall quality, as well as readability to support objective analysis. RESULTS In a series of 1578 binary choice assessments, ChatGPT was preferred in 48.4% (95% CI, 45.9%-50.9%) of instances. There were 12 instances where ChatGPT's responses were unanimously preferred by all evaluators, compared to 17 instances for specialist doctors. In terms of overall quality, there was no significant difference between the responses of ChatGPT (3.98; 95% CI, 3.93-4.02) and those of specialist doctors (3.95; 95% CI, 3.90-4.00) (t=0.95, p=0.34), both being considered "good". Although differences in accuracy (t=0.48, p=0.63) and empathy (t=2.19, p=0.03) lacked statistical significance, the completeness of textual output (t=9.27, p=0.00) was a distinct advantage of the Large Language Model (ChatGPT). In the sections of the question where patients and doctors responded together (Q223-Q242), ChatGPT demonstrated superior performance (p=0.006). Regarding readability, no statistical difference was found between the responses of specialist doctors (median: 7th grade, Q1: 4th grade; Q3: 8th grade) and those of ChatGPT (median: 7th grade, Q1: 7th grade; Q3: 8th grade) according to the Mann-Whitney U test (p=0.09). The overall quality of ChatGPT's output exhibited strong correlations with other sub-dimensions (with empathy: r=0.842; with accuracy: r=0.839; with completeness: r=0.795), and there was also a high correlation between the sub-dimensions of accuracy and completeness (r=0.762). CONCLUSIONS ChatGPT demonstrated more stable performance across various dimensions. Its output of health information content is more structurally sound, addressing the issue of variability in individual specialist doctors' information output. ChatGPT's performance highlights its potential as an auxiliary tool for health information, despite limitations such as AI hallucinations. It is recommended that patients be involved in the creation and evaluation of health information to enhance the quality and relevance of the information.

show abstract

Evaluation of quality and readability of over-the-counter medication package inserts

Cited by 5 publications

References 45 publications

Patient education information material assessment criteria: A scoping review

Patient education information material assessment criteria: A scoping review

Psikiyatride Yaygın Olarak Kullanılan Antidepresan İlaç Prospektüslerinin Okunabilirliğinin Değerlendirilmesi

Large Language Models (LLMs) vs. Specialist Doctors: A Comparative Study on Health Information in specific medical domains. (Preprint)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About