Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37676583›Full record

ArticleIrish journal of medical science2024

Patient information leaflet in the era of digitalisation: a cross-sectional study on patients' attitudes and practices.

Mona Almanasef

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

1 author.

Mona AlmanasefDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, King Khalid University, P.O. Box 960, 61421, Abha, Saudi Arabia. malmanasaef@kku.edu.sa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4278-8364

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient information leaflets (PILs) are documents that are standardized in nature and provide guidance for patients or caregivers on the safe and effective use of medicines. Previous evidence suggests that written information is linked to enhancing the amount of information remembered. Currently, patients have become more involved in digital searches for information. However, there is variability in the quality and reliability of information obtained from the web. According to Saudi Food and Drug Authority regulations, pharmaceutical manufacturers are required to supplement each pharmaceutical product entering the Saudi market with a digital leaflet in addition to a paper leaflet. This research aimed to evaluate patients' attitudes and practices towards PILs.

methodsA cross-sectional study design using an anonymous online self-administered questionnaire was adopted. The study took place in Saudi Arabia between October and December 2022. A convenience sampling strategy was used to recruit the study participants. The questionnaire was adapted from previous research that investigated patient attitudes and practices towards PILs.

resultsA total of 463 participants agreed to take part in the study and completed the questionnaire. Physicians were the top utilized source for getting medicine information (92.7%), followed by pharmacists (84.7%), PILs (67.4%), searching the Internet (53.6%), and consulting family and friends (31.7%). About 78% of the participants reported often or always reading PILs for new drugs (78.2%), but this percentage was lower (45.4%) for repeat prescriptions. A positive perception towards PILs was observed among the study participants. While 54.6% of the participants indicated a preference for having both paper and digital information leaflets, 33.3% reported a preference for paper leaflets, and 12% indicated a preference for digital formats.

conclusionAlthough patients had positive perceptions towards PILs, physicians were the top-consulted source for medicine information. Pharmacists should educate patients about the importance of referring to PILs which can also be accessed electronically in the case of a preference for a digital format, as the quality and reliability of the information obtained from the web cannot be confirmed.

Indexed as

PamphletsPublicationsCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMental RecallReproducibility of ResultsAttitudesPatient information leafletPracticesSaudi Arabia

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.