ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2014
A study comparing the effectiveness of three warning labels on the package of driving-impairing medicines.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Changing tracks: how different visual presentations of travel itineraries impact the choice between plane and train.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Do Pictograms on Medication Packages Cause People to Consult Package Inserts Less Often? If so, With What Consequences?Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Trends in the Use of Driving-Impairing Medicines According to the DRUID Category: A Population-Based Registry Study with Reference to Driving in a Region of Spain between 2015 and 2019.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Factors influencing changes in medication-taking and driving behavior after warnings about prescription medications that prohibit driving: an online survey.BMC public health · 2022Article
- A narrative review on do's and don'ts in prescription label writing - lessons for pharmacists.Integrated pharmacy research & practice · 2018Review
- Use of driving-impairing medicines by a Spanish population: a population-based registry study.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Receipt of Warnings Regarding Potentially Impairing Prescription Medications and Associated Risk Perceptions in a National Sample of U.S. Drivers.Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs · 2017Article
- People with insomnia: experiences with sedative hypnotics and risk perception.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral medicines are known to potentially impair patients' driving fitness. Appropriate communication towards patients about this risk can be supported by the use of package warning labels.
objectiveTo compare the effectiveness of a standing practice yellow/black label-with written warning-with a newly developed rating model in communicating risk on driving-impairing medicines (DIMs). Furthermore, the added value of a side-text in the rating model was determined.
settingCommunity pharmacies in the Netherlands.
methodIn a cross-sectional study, patients with a first dispensing of a DIM were asked by their community pharmacists (n = 38) to fill out a written questionnaire to compare each of the three warning labels. A 2 [yellow/black label vs. rating model (pair 1) and rating model with side-text vs. rating model without side-text (pair 2)] × 3 [category of driving-impairment: I = minor risk, II = moderate risk, III = severe risk] design was used. The category of driving-impairment varied per respondent, depending on the DIM the patient collected.
main outcome measure(1) estimated level of driving risk valued by patients (2) intention to change driving behaviour after seeing the warning label.
resultsAn estimated number of 992 patients were approached. As 298 questionnaires were analysed, the net response rate was 30%. With the yellow/black label, respondents considered DIMs of all three categories of driving-impairment to equally impair driving fitness, while with the rating model the estimated risk was higher when the category referred to a higher level of driving-impairment. Addition of a side-text to the rating model resulted in a significantly higher estimated level of driving risk and a significant increase in intention to change driving behaviour. Only 8.0% of the patients using a category III DIM estimated the level of driving risk correctly when seeing the yellow/black label, while this was 26.7% for the rating model and 43.0% for the rating model with side-text.
conclusionThe yellow/black label, which is standing practice in the Netherlands, is less effective in terms of estimated risk and intention to change driving behaviour, compared to a newly developed rating model. This model is even more effective when a side-text is added. Implementation of the rating model in clinical practice should be considered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25204257What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.