ArticlePatient preference and adherence2018
The evaluation of pharmaceutical pictograms among elderly patients in community pharmacy settings - a multicenter pilot study.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Guessability of standard pharmaceutical pictograms in members of the Nigerian public.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2023Article
- Pharmaceutical indication pictograms for low literacy viewers: Health literacy and comprehension.Health SA = SA Gesondheid · 2023Article
- Exploring the Role of Pictograms in the Comprehension of Pain.Journal of pain research · 2023Article
- Evaluation of a pharmacist-led intervention to improve medication adherence in patients initiating dabigatran treatment: a comparison with standard pharmacy practice in Poland.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- Health Literacy Level and Comprehension of Prescription and Nonprescription Drug Information.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Personalized and Self-Management: Systematic Search and Evaluation Quality Factors and User Preference of Drug Reference Apps in Taiwan.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Evaluation of pharmaceutical pictograms by older "turkers": A cross-sectional crowdsourced study.Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP · 2021Article
- Medication Adherence and the Role of Pictograms in Medication Counselling of Chronic Patients: a Review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Review
- Patient counselling service with the use of pictograms as the example of pharmacist intervention to improving compliance and medicine safety.Cardiology journal · 2021Article
- Applying the Model for Improvement to a Student-run Quality Improvement Project in a Refugee Center: A Pilot Study.Innovations in pharmacy · 2020Article
- Patients' Perspective And Usefulness Of Pictograms In Short-Term Antibiotic Therapy - Multicenter, Randomized Trial.Patient preference and adherence · 2019Article
- Article
- Recall of Pharmaceutical Pictograms by Older Adults.The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe search for new ways to optimize the use of medications by patients has led the pharmaceutical community to promote the idea of introducing pictograms into routine practice. The main intention of pictograms is to ease patient adherence and to reduce potential risks or errors associated with the use of medications. PURPOSE: To evaluate a series of pharmaceutical pictograms for patient comprehension. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe study was conducted in community pharmacies within a European Union country that belongs to the professional research network. Structured interviews were used to evaluate the pictograms for patient comprehension. This consisted of an assessment of the following: the transparency and translucency of the pictograms, health literacy, and pictogram recall. Participants were also given the opportunity to provide feedback on how to improve the pictograms. The primary endpoint was pictogram comprehension. Secondary outcomes included recall of the pictograms and pictogram translucency.
resultsThe study included 68 patients with whom face-to-face interviews were performed. Low transparency results (≤25%) and extensive patient feedback in initial interviews led to the withdrawal of certain pictograms (n=15) from the evaluation. Among the pictograms included in the final stage of our research, 22 pictograms (62.8%) obtained an acceptable transparency level ≥66%. All pictograms passed the short-term recall test with positive results.
conclusionA majority of the designed and modified pictograms reached satisfactory guess-ability scores. Feedback from patients enabled modification of the pictograms and proved that patients have an important voice in the discussion regarding the design of additional pictograms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.