ArticleDrug, healthcare and patient safety2018
Calculating reading ease score of patient package inserts in Iran.
Article in Drug, healthcare and patient safety, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of the Nursing Journal Club Perception Scale (NJCPS).Journal of education and health promotion · 2023Article
- Article
- Evaluation of Medication Package Inserts in Ethiopia.Journal of environmental and public health · 2022Article
- Provision and Need for Medicine Information in Asia and Africa: A Scoping Review of the Literature.Drug safety · 2021Article
- Assessing the Readability of Medicine Information Materials: The Case of Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital - Mixed Approach.Patient preference and adherence · 2021Article
- Patients' Experiences and Perspectives of Receiving Written Medicine Information About Medicines: A Qualitative Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2021Article
- Do drug package inserts meet the rules and regulations of Iran's Food and Drug Administration in terms of informing patients?Health promotion perspectives · 2019Article
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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe patient package inserts (PPIs), which contain the necessary information about medications intended for patients, need to be expressed in a clear language comprehensible to everyone.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the readability and understandability of the drug package inserts for the inexpert people.
methodsThe readability of the 158 PPIs of the 33 drugs, registered and manufactured in Iran, was calculated. The main criterion for selecting PPIs to include in this study was of those top-selling drugs during the year 2015 according to the Social Security Organization in Iran. The PPIs were collected from the pharmacies of the three major cities, namely, Tabriz, Ardabil and Meshgin Shahr. Then, using the Flesch-Dayani readability (FDR) tool adjusted for the Persian language, the average number of the words and syllables was counted to calculate and grade the readability score of the selected PPIs.
resultsThis study showed that the average FDR readability score for all the 33 drugs is 52.52, which are graded 10th-11th. Of the PPIs, 70.89% were difficult to read, and on average, the readability of the PPIs was five times difficult than the standard ones. Only 13.92% PPIs were suitable for the 5th-7th grade, and 15.19% of the package inserts ranked in the 8th-9th reading grade.
conclusionA considerable number of the PPIs in Iran have low readability level and were not suitable for the inexpert readers. Since the treatment cost is very high, people tend to use medications arbitrarily or simply use old prescriptions. This study suggests the necessity of a major improvement in the readability level of the PPIs in order to ensure the usefulness of the PPIs to the majority of the consumers.
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.