Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37009429›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2023

Evaluation of Medicine Information Leaflets for Omeprazole, Safety Knowledge, and Perceptions of Taking the Medication in Thailand.

Kamonphat Wongtaweepkij, Nutchwarang Sup-Adulchai, Jirath Chanachoat, Janet Krska, Narumol Jarernsiripornkul

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Kamonphat WongtaweepkijDivision of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Srinakharinwirot University, Nakhon Nayok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0003-2602-9701
Nutchwarang Sup-AdulchaiDivision of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Jirath ChanachoatDivision of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
Janet KrskaMedway School of Pharmacy, University of Kent, Kent, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4148-5652
Narumol JarernsiripornkulDivision of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-5591-9565

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to compare package inserts and patient information leaflets for omeprazole in terms of the quality of and satisfaction with the written medicine information, medication safety knowledge, and perceived benefits and risks. Patients and methods: A cross-sectional, comparative study was conducted at a university hospital in Thailand. Outpatients visiting the pharmacy departments prescribed omeprazole were randomly selected to receive either a package insert or a patient information leaflet. Medication safety knowledge was measured using a set of eight questions. The quality of the written medicine information was measured by the Consumer Information Rating Form. Perceived benefits and risks of the medication were rated using a visual analog scale. Linear regression was used to determine factors associated with perceived benefits and risks. Results: Of the 645 patients, 293 agreed to answer the questionnaire. 157 and 136 patients were given patient information leaflets and package inserts, respectively. Most respondents were female (65.6%), over half had a degree (56.2%). Patients reading the patient information leaflets had slightly higher overall safety knowledge scores than those reading the package inserts (5.88 ± 2.25 vs 5.25 ± 1.84, p=0.01). Using the Consumer Information Rating Form, the patient information leaflets were given significantly higher scores compared to the package inserts for comprehensibility (19.34±3.92 vs 17.32±3.52, p<0.001) and design quality (29.25 ± 5.00 vs 23.81 ± 5.16, p<0.001). After reading the leaflets, patients receiving the patient information leaflets had significantly higher satisfaction with the information provided (p=0.003). In contrast, those receiving the package inserts rated the risks of omeprazole higher (p=0.007). Conclusion: Demonstrable differences were found from the patient perspective between a package insert and a patient information leaflet for the same medicine, mostly in favour of patient information leaflets. Medicine safety knowledge after reading PI and PIL was similar. However, receiving package inserts provided higher perceived risks from taking the medicine.

Indexed as

consumer information rating formperceptions of benefits and riskssafety knowledgewritten medicine information

Identifiers

PMID37009429
PMCPMC10064870

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.