Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30794574›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2019

Users' preferences and perceptions of the comprehensibility and readability of medication labels.

Emilia da Silva Pons, Cassia Garcia Moraes, Maicon Falavigna, Lisana Reginini Sirtori, Fernanda da Cruz, Guilherme Webster, Tatiane da Silva Dal Pizzol

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Informed consent in endoscopy: Read, understood, or just signed?iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. The effectiveness of using text and pictograms on oral rehydration, dry-mixture sachet labels.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2021
    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

7 authors.

Emilia da Silva PonsProadi-SUS Research Projects Office, Hospital Moinhos de Vento (HMV), Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-4881-8728
Cassia Garcia MoraesProadi-SUS Research Projects Office, Hospital Moinhos de Vento (HMV), Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Maicon FalavignaProadi-SUS Research Projects Office, Hospital Moinhos de Vento (HMV), Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Lisana Reginini SirtoriGGREG-General Management Office for Regulations and Good Regulatory Practices, Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA), Brasília, DF, Brazil.
Fernanda da CruzGeneral Management Office for Health Inspection and Surveillance, ANVISA, Brasília, DF, Brazil.
Guilherme WebsterIndependent Graphic Designer, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
Tatiane da Silva Dal PizzolDepartment of Production and Control of Medicines, School of Pharmacy, UFRGS, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the labeling preferences of medication users and characterize their perceptions of the comprehensibility and readability of medication labels.

methodsWe conducted a population-based cross-sectional study of medication users aged 18 years or older in 10 Brazilian capital cities. Perceptions of the comprehensibility and readability of medication labels in relation to sociodemographic characteristics were evaluated by Poisson regression models with robust variance. Labeling preferences were assessed through questions addressing possible improvements and through the use of digitally simulated packages.

resultsOf 6,255 medication users interviewed, more than half found it difficult or very difficult to read (50.8%) and/or understand (52.0%) medication labels. Difficulties were more pronounced for participants aged 40 years or older, with lower levels of education, and non-whites. Increasing the font size (93.7%), describing the indications for use (95.9%) and contraindications (95.6%) on the label, and highlighting the expiration date (96.3%) were the most widely accepted improvements. In the evaluation of simulated packages, users preferred factors that improved readability, such as increased font size, use of graphic elements and color to highlight the concentration of the active ingredient, and contrast between the font color and background. The new simulated package design, with increased font size, color to highlight the concentration and contrast between the font color and background, was preferred over the standard design by 77.0% of participants.

conclusionBased on users' perceptions, increased font size and use of graphic elements and color to emphasize critical information, such as expiration date and concentration, are factors that contribute to making medication labels clearer to users. Pharmaceutical industries and policy makers should consider these items when developing labels and defining policies on this issue.

Indexed as

ComprehensionDrug LabelingDrug PackagingPatient PreferenceReadingVisual PerceptionAdolescentAdultAgedAge FactorsBrazilCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID30794574
PMCPMC6386266

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.