ArticleBMJ open2021
Development and psychometric validation for evaluating written medicine information in Thailand: The Consumer Information Rating Form.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Expert and Patient Evaluation of an Education Tool for Breast Cancer Patients on Endocrine Therapy: Assessment of Usability, Knowledge and Medication Beliefs.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Medicine Information Leaflets for Omeprazole, Safety Knowledge, and Perceptions of Taking the Medication in Thailand.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- Thai Patients' Drug Safety Knowledge and Perceptions Relating to Different Forms of Written Medicine Information: A Comparative Study.Patient preference and adherence · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo translate and validate the consumer information rating form (CIRF) for use in Thai populations.
designThe development of the CIRF was carried out in two phases: translation process and cognitive interview, and psychometric testing.
settingA university hospital and a tertiary hospital in northeast Thailand.
participants150 outpatients from medicine department: 30 for phase 1 and 120 patients for phase 2 study.
methodsThe CIRF was translated with cultural adaptation into Thai using cognitive interview technique in a sample of outpatients. A larger sample of outpatients then completed the CIRF in relation to either a package insert (PI) or a patient information leaflet (PIL) for one of three medicines: atorvastatin, celecoxib and metformin. Construct validity was assessed using principal component analysis (PCA) and internal consistency using Cronbach's α coefficient. Known group validity was assessed by comparing mean consumers' ratings for PIs and PILs.
resultsThirty participants engaged in the cognitive interview and 120 participants completed the CIRF. The PCA found the 17 items of the CIRF were extracted into three factors: comprehensibility, utility and design quality scales, mirroring the original. Cronbach's α for the overall scale (0.904) indicated good internal consistency. Known-group validity demonstrated significant differences in consumers' rating between PIs and PILs for almost all items (p<0.001).
conclusionThai version of CIRF had acceptable validity and reliability for Thai consumers' ratings of written medicine information. The CIRF could be of practical use in the process of developing medicine information to ensure consumers' comprehension and their usefulness.
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.