ArticlePharmacy practice
Guessability of U.S. pharmaceutical pictograms in Iranian prospective users.
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.
- A comparative investigation of machine learning algorithms for predicting safety signs comprehension based on socio-demographic factors and cognitive sign features.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Guessability of standard pharmaceutical pictograms in members of the Nigerian public.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study examined the gueassability of US pharmaceutical pictograms as well as associated demographic factors and cognitive design features among Iranian adults.
methodsA total of 400 participants requested to guess the meaning of 53 US pharmaceutical pictograms using the open-ended method. Moreover, the participants were asked to rate the cognitive design features of each pictorial in terms of familiarity, concreteness, simplicity, meaningfulness and semantic closeness on a scale of 0-100.
resultsThe average guessability score (standard deviation) was 66.30 (SD=24.59). Fifty-five percent of pharmaceutical pictograms understudy met the correctness criteria of 67% specified by ISO3864, while only 30% reached the criterion level of 85% set by ANSIz535.3. Low literate participants with only primary school education had substantial difficulty in the interpretation of pharmaceutical pictograms compared to those completed higher education levels. Younger adults of <30 years significantly performed better in the interpretation of pharmaceutical pictograms as compared to >31 years old participants. 'Home patient care' and 'daily medication use' had no effect on guessability performance. Concerning cognitive design features, meaningfulness better predict geussability score compared to the others.
conclusionsSeveral USP pictograms fail to be correctly interpreted by Iranian users and need to be redesigned respecting cognitive design features. Interface designers are recommended to incorporate more familiar and concrete elements into their graphics in order to create more meaningful pictorial symbols and to avoid any misinterpretation by the user. Much effective medication use is expected to be achieved by means of this approach, through the improvement of the communication property of pharmaceutical 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.