Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35123834›Full record

SynthesisPatient education and counseling2022

Strategies to optimize comprehension of numerical medication instructions: A systematic review and concept map.

Marianne Sharko, Mohit M Sharma, Natalie C Benda, Melissa Chan, Eric Wilsterman, Lisa Grossman Liu, Michelle Demetres, Diana Delgado, Jessica S Ancker

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Patient education and counseling, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Insufficient evidence for interactive or animated graphics for communicating probability.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Specific Medication Literacy in Older Adults with Asthma.The journal for nurse practitioners : JNP · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Marianne SharkoDept. of Population Health Sciences, Division of Health Informatics, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA; Department of Pediatrics, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: marsharko@gmail.com.
Mohit M SharmaDept. of Population Health Sciences, Division of Health Informatics, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Natalie C BendaDept. of Population Health Sciences, Division of Health Informatics, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Melissa ChanDepartment of Pediatrics, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Eric WilstermanDepartment of Pediatrics, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Lisa Grossman LiuDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Michelle DemetresWeill Cornell Medicine Samuel J Wood Library, New York, NY, USA.
Diana DelgadoWeill Cornell Medicine Samuel J Wood Library, New York, NY, USA.
Jessica S AnckerDept. of Population Health Sciences, Division of Health Informatics, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA; Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.

Funding

Making Numbers Meaningful: Promoting Evidence-based Communication of Numbers in HealthR01LM012964 · NLM · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI ANCKER, JESSICA S. · 2018 to 2021
$1.4M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM012964
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop evidence-based recommendations for improving comprehension of quantitative medication instructions.

methodsThis review included a literature search from inception to November 2021. Studies were included for the following: 1) original research; 2) compared multiple formats for presenting quantitative medication information on dose, frequency, and/or time; 3) included patients/lay-people; 4) assessed comprehension-related outcomes quantitatively. To classify the studies, we developed a concept map. We weighed 3 factors (risk of bias in individual studies, consistency of findings among studies, and homogeneity of the interventions tested) to generate 3 levels of recommendations.

resultsTwenty-one studies were included. Level 1 recommendations are: 1) use visualizations of medication doses for liquid medications, and 2) express instructions in time-periods rather than times per day. Level 2 recommendations include: validate icons, use panels or tables with explanatory text, use visualizations for non-English speaking populations and for those with low health literacy and limited English proficiency.

conclusionsVisualized liquid medication doses and time period-based administration instructions improve comprehension of numerical medication instructions. Use of visualizations for those with limited health literacy and English proficiency could result in improved outcomes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Practitioners should use visualizations for liquid medication instructions and time period-based instructions to improve outcomes.

Indexed as

ComprehensionHealth LiteracyHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsPharmaceutical PreparationsAdherenceFormat variationsMedication instructionsNumerical interventionsPictograms

Identifiers

PMID35123834
PMCPMC9203902

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.