Trial reportBMJ open2021
Investigating the impact of patient-centred labels on comprehension of medication dosing: a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence-Based Design of Prescription Medication Information: An Updated Scoping Review.Drug safety · 2025Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to implement a version of patient-centred labels (PCL) consistent with current labelling practice in Australia; assess the effectiveness of PCL in relation to the proportion of participants that correctly comprehend dosing instructions, and explore the proportion of correct comprehension of PCL in participants with both low and high health literacy.
designRandomised controlled trial.
settingA large tertiary care hospital in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
participants121 participants with a majority born in Australia (65.3%), New Zealand (14.0%), the UK (6.6%) and Ireland (2.5%).
interventionParticipants were randomly assigned to either a panel of three PCL (n=61) or three standard labels (n=60) and asked to comprehend their assigned panel of labels. OUTCOME MEASURES: Difference in the proportion of participants that correctly comprehend dosing instructions provided on PCL compared with standard labels. The two-proportion test was used to measure the impact of PCL on the proportion of participants correctly comprehending dosing instructions.
resultsA greater proportion of participants were able to accurately comprehend PCL compared with standard labels. The proportion of participants who were able to correctly comprehend dose instructions provided on all three labels was significantly higher in the group that received PCL; 23.3% standard vs 83.6% PCL, p<0.001. The effect was observed in both low and high health literacy participants. The proportion of participants with accurate label comprehension was higher in participants with low Newest Vital Signs scores (8.3% standard vs 85.7% PCL, p<0.001) and low Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine scores (10.5% standard vs 96.0% PCL, p<0.001) who received PCL.
conclusionThis study supports the use of PCL in Australian pharmacy practice. PCL provide simple, clear and explicit dosing instructions to patients. Implementing PCL may reduce the risk of misinterpreting dosing instructions by patients and improve quality use of medicines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621000083897; Results.
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.