SynthesisDrug safety2021
The Effectiveness and Value of Written Medicine Information Across Asia and Africa: Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Drug safety, 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.
- Patients' Experiences and Preferences for Medicine Information: An International Comparison Between Malaysia, Thailand, Uganda, and England.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reviews on the role, value, effectiveness and desirable content of written medicine information (WMI) mostly include studies from high-income countries. We reviewed studies from Africa and Asia published between January 2004 and December 2019 to determine (1) the effect of WMI on knowledge and behaviour and (2) whether patients value WMI and their preferences for WMI. We included 16 intervention studies involving almost 3500 participants and 27 surveys of patients/public totalling over 11,000 people. Both the quality of the intervention studies and the reporting quality varied. Surveys were mostly localised, many with inadequate sampling strategies, and hence, were poorly representative of wider populations. However, most included a high proportion of participants with low educational levels. Most of the intervention studies reported significant improvements in knowledge and/or adherence after provision of WMI. Many utilised specially developed WMI in local languages, enhanced by pictograms. Provision of verbal information in addition to WMI showed variable impact. The proportion of people who read WMI, used as an indicator of its value, was reported in 15 surveys, with an overall figure of 74%. The most desirable aspects of WMI reported in 12 studies were indication, side effects, dose/instructions for use, contraindications, precautions and interactions. Nine studies reported local language was desirable. The studies suggest that WMI can improve both knowledge and adherence and is highly valued by people in many countries across Africa and Asia. Mechanisms should be considered by regulatory authorities and manufacturers to facilitate the provision of leaflets in local languages using simple terminology, perhaps enhanced by pictograms.This study is registered with PROSPERO, registration number: CRD42019127001.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34623626What 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.