ArticlePharmacy practice
Investigating the efficacy of an interactive warning for use in labeling strategies used by us pharmacies.
Article in Pharmacy practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using change detection to objectively evaluate whether novel over-the-counter drug labels can increase attention to critical health information among older adults.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnited States pharmacies repackage medications into multi-dose vials, enabling customized dosing for prescription drugs. Investment in infrastructure has made this the predominant approach to packaging for US prescriptions. Although recent changes to labeling now discourage the use of auxiliary labels (small stickers highlighting information germane to the safe and effective use), they are still allowed by USP<17>, provided their use comes from an evidence-based perspective.
objectivesEvaluate how 'interactive,' placements of auxiliary labels (placement requiring physical manipulation of the warning to accomplish a task (e.g. opening)) garner attention as compared to those placed vertically or horizontally.
methodsNinety-six participants were eye tracked while opening three prescription vials (each with an auxiliary warning label with a different placement: vertical, horizontal and interactive). Recall and recognition were tested subsequently. Linear mixed models were used to analyze the continuous variables while the binary response variables were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models. The effect of auxiliary labels was fitted as a fixed effect and the subject-to-subject variation was considered as a random effect in the model. Participants' age, health literacy and sex were added to the models if their effect was statistically significant at alpha=0.05.
resultsThe placement of the warnings significantly impacted the time spent viewing the information they contained at alpha=0.05; people spent significantly longer on interactive placements (0.96; SD 0.13 seconds) than either, horizontal placements (0.27; SD 0.037 seconds) or those placed vertically (0.18 seconds; SD 0.035). Participants were equally as likely to see information presented in an interactive placement (90%; SD 3.8) or horizontal placement (78%; SD 05.5) but less likely to view warnings placed vertically (60%; SD 6.9). Free recall responses also supported the use of interactive placement (62%; SD 6.8 recall) as compared to horizontal placements which were 29%; SD 3.0 and 20%; SD 6.0 for vertical placements.
conclusionsData provides evidence which suggests that interactive and horizontal placements out-perform auxiliary labels placed vertically on prescription vials with regard to garnering patient attention.
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.