Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29497281›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2018

The evaluation of pharmaceutical pictograms among elderly patients in community pharmacy settings - a multicenter pilot study.

Piotr Merks, Damian Świeczkowski, Marcin Balcerzak, Ewelina Drelich, Katarzyna Białoszewska, Natalia Cwalina, Jerzy Krysinski, Miłosz Jaguszewski, Annie Pouliot, Regis Vaillancourt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Guessability of standard pharmaceutical pictograms in members of the Nigerian public.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Health Literacy Level and Comprehension of Prescription and Nonprescription Drug Information.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Recall of Pharmaceutical Pictograms by Older Adults.The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Piotr Merks *Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus University in Torun, Bydgoszcz-Torun, Poland.
Damian Świeczkowski *First Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland.
Marcin BalcerzakFarenta Polska, Warsaw, Poland.
Ewelina DrelichFarenta Polska, Warsaw, Poland.
Katarzyna BiałoszewskaDepartment of Medical Psychology, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Natalia CwalinaFirst Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland.
Jerzy KrysinskiDepartment of Pharmaceutical Technology, Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus University in Torun, Bydgoszcz-Torun, Poland.
Miłosz JaguszewskiFirst Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland.
Annie PouliotChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Regis VaillancourtChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

community pharmacyelderly populationhealth literacypharmaceutical pictogramsPoland

Identifiers

PMID29497281
PMCPMC5818874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.