ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2022
Could paper package leaflet be left out from hospital products?
Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 2022. 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.
- Assessing Readability and Usability of Electronic Medicine Package Leaflets in South Korea: A Mixed-Methods Study.Drug, healthcare and patient safety · 2025Article
- Acceptance of Electronic Labeling for Medicinal Product Information Among Malaysian Hospital Patients: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Package leaflet provides information about medicinal product to the user. Printed leaflet is familiar and available, however poorly legible, especially when containing multiple languages. It is resourceful to update, has potential to go missing or get damaged, and is environmentally burdensome. The pharmaceutical manufacturers in the Baltic countries have been granted permission to market selected hospital medicinal products without printed package leaflet. The industrial pilot project is expected to promote availability of medicinal products and patient safety via increased access to medicinal information. Objective: Only few countries in Europe have derogated from Article 58 of Directive 2001/83/EC. Knowledge about the effects of removal of paper package leaflet from the medicinal product is limited, and related publications are scarce. Current interview study is identifying the obstacles during the implementation of the industrial project, investigating the potential environmental impact, and searching for further opportunities for the package leaflet in development of medicinal products. Methods: Real-time person-to-person semi-structured interviews with relevant stakeholders were conducted, and transcripts were analysed by content analysis to identify themes. Results: Results demonstrated general support for removing package leaflet from selected hospital products. Main difficulties of the industrial project regarded the need for clear communication and practical disadvantages of project setup. Main benefits included educational aspect of increasing awareness about product information and strengthened collaboration. Majority of participants felt doubtful about the impact of the industrial project on people's awareness of ecological issues and they admittedly lacked sufficient information on the environmental impact of pharmaceutical packaging. Conclusion: The removal of paper leaflet could be extended to more products based on the positive feedback for the industrial pilot project. However, it is paramount that the format of electronic product information would need to be enhanced first to improve readability.
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.