ArticlePatient preference and adherence2021
Evaluation of Patient's Knowledge of Atorvastatin Information in Patient Information Leaflets: A Pre-Post Intervention Study in Thailand.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2021. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the effect of using atorvastatin PIL on patients' medication knowledge, perceptions of the PIL usefulness, their anxiety about the medication, and factors related to these aspects. PATIENTS AND
methodsA pre-post intervention study was conducted in outpatients at a university hospital. Patients prescribed atorvastatin were enrolled using systematic random sampling. Participants were asked to complete Self-Administered Questionnaire to assess atorvastatin knowledge at baseline. An atorvastatin-PIL produced by the manufacturer was introduced to the participants as the intervention. One month after receiving the PIL, the participants were re-assessed. Ten questions were developed to assess atorvastatin knowledge and visual analog scale (VAS) was used to assess perceived benefits of using the PIL and patient anxiety about the medication. Multiple linear regression was used to assess the related factors.
resultsOf 450 questionnaires distributed, 370 were returned. Atorvastatin knowledge significantly increased with mean score of 5.06±1.92 at baseline to 8.34±1.79 at 1-month after intervention. Reading all sections of the PIL (p=0.017) and working for civil service (p=0.006) were associated with higher knowledge scores at baseline and after intervention. Low educational level was associated with lower knowledge scores at baseline (p=0.002), but experience of allergy (p=0.042) was associated with higher knowledge scores after the intervention. Patients had high level of perceived usefulness from the PIL (average scores=8.87±1.83) and low level of anxiety (average scores=3.69±3.06). Reading all sections of the PIL (p=0.007) and taking more than 5 medications (p=0.012) were related to perceived usefulness of the PIL. Females (p<0.001) and herbal supplement users (p=0.048) were related to anxiety about the medication.
conclusionPILs could improve medication knowledge in patients. Patients' perceptions of benefits of PILs were high and anxiety about medication was low. Use of PILs should be encouraged to improve patients' knowledge and appropriate use of medications.
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.