ArticleEuropean journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice2020
Inpatients' satisfaction towards information received about medicines.
Article in European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health information management of older, multimorbid patients in German primary care: feasibility and first results of the outcome measures of a cluster-randomised controlled pilot trial - HYPERION-TransCare.BMC primary care · 2025Trial
- Trial
- How patients deal with side-effects of topical intraocular pressure-lowering medication in glaucoma: a cross-sectional study from a tertiary ophthalmology clinic.International ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Patient Experience Regarding Medication-Related Information Received in a Rural Private Polyclinic Setting in Vietnam.Journal of patient experience · 2025Article
- Parents' satisfaction with information received on psychotropic drugs used by adolescents in a Mental Health Unit.Revista paulista de pediatria : orgao oficial da Sociedade de Pediatria de Sao Paulo · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveHealthcare providers (HCPs) often overestimate the quality and quantity of information they provide to patients. This study aimed to find out inpatients' satisfaction towards information about medicines provided during inpatient stay.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted at Lewisham Hospital and Queen Elizabeth Hospital in June 2017. Patients' satisfaction with information about medicines provided during inpatient stay was assessed using a 17-item Satisfaction with Information about Medicines Scale (SIMS).
results71 patients completed the questionnaire. The average percentage of patients being satisfied with the information provided in the nine-item 'action and usage' subscale of SIMS was 74.4%, compared with the eight-item 'potential problems' subscale with an average percentage of 56%. Patients aged 45-64 were more likely to be satisfied with information on 'how the medicines work' than the 65 and above as well as the 18-44 age groups (p=0.045). Patients who attended secondary school and below were more likely to be satisfied than those attending college and above towards this information (p=0.002). Patients of white or mixed white and black ethnicity were less satisfied than other ethnic groups of information regarding the impact of medication on sex life (p=0.019). Black or black British were more likely to be satisfied towards information on unwanted medication side effects compared with other ethnic groups (p=0.025).
conclusionsHCPs could improve on the provision of information on potential problems that patients might experience with their medicines. Patients' age, educational level and ethnicity should be taken into consideration when providing information about medicines.
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.