ArticleDrug, healthcare and patient safety2017
Adaptation of the European Commission-recommended user testing method to patient medication information leaflets in Japan.
Article in Drug, healthcare and patient safety, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Medicine Information Leaflets for Omeprazole, Safety Knowledge, and Perceptions of Taking the Medication in Thailand.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Validation of the Japanese Version of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Provision and Need for Medicine Information in Asia and Africa: A Scoping Review of the Literature.Drug safety · 2021Article
- Development of consumer information leaflets for deprescribing in older hospital inpatients: a mixed-methods study.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe safe use of drugs relies on providing accurate drug information to patients. In Japan, patient leaflets called Drug Guide for Patients are officially available; however, their utility has never been verified. This is the first attempt to improve Drug Guide for Patients via user testing in Japan. PURPOSE: To test and improve communication of drug information to minimize risk for patients via user testing of the current and revised versions of Drug Guide for Patients, and to demonstrate that this method is effective for improving Drug Guide for Patients in Japan.
methodWe prepared current and revised versions of the Drug Guide for Patients and performed user testing via semi-structured interviews with consumers to compare these versions for two guides for Mercazole and Strattera. We evenly divided 54 participants into two groups with similar distributions of sex, age, and literacy level to test the differing versions of the Mercazole guide. Another group of 30 participants were divided evenly to test the versions of the Strattera guide. After completing user testing, the participants evaluated both guides in terms of amount of information, readability, usefulness of information, and layout and appearance. Participants were also asked for their opinions on the leaflets.
resultsResponse rates were 100% for both Mercazole and Strattera. The revised versions of both Guides were superior or equal to the current versions in terms of accessibility and understandability. The revised version of the Mercazole guide showed better ratings for readability, usefulness of information, and layout (
conclusionUser testing was effective for evaluating the utility of Drug Guide for Patients. Additionally, the revised version had superior accessibility and understandability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.