ArticleBMC public health2023
Comprehension of prescription orders with and without pictograms: tool validation and comparative assessment among a sample of participants from a developing country.
Article in BMC public health, 2023. 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.
- A qualitative study to explore the perspectives of key stakeholders regarding pharmaceutical pictograms in Pakistan.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2026Article
- A study on user willingness to participate in an adverse drug event information sharing system.BMC public health · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedication errors can often occur due to the patient's inability to comprehend written or verbal medication orders. This study aimed to develop pictograms of selected medication orders and to validate the comprehension of prescription orders index and compare the comprehension scores with and without pictograms. In addition to determine the predictors that could be associated with a better or worse comprehension of prescription orders with pictograms versus that of their written counterparts.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted using a snowball sampling technique. Six pictograms were developed to depict specific medication orders. The comprehension of prescription orders index was constructed and validated. The study then compared the comprehension scores of prescription orders with and without pictograms, and identified the predicting factors score difference.
resultsA total of 1848 participants were included in the study. The structure of the comprehension of prescription orders index was validated over a solution of four factors, with an adequate Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy of 0.711 and a significant Bartlett's test of sphericity (P < 0.001). The construct validity of the index was further confirmed by highly significant correlations between each item and the full index (P < 0.001). The study also found a significant association between the difference in comprehension scores for prescription orders with and without pictograms and several factors, including age, level of education, area of residence, number of children, and smoking status with the difference of comprehension scores (P < 0.001).
conclusionPictogram-based instructions of medication orders were better understood by the Lebanese population than written instructions, making the incorporation of pictograms in pharmacy practice paramount to optimize medication use by the patient and thus yielding better health outcomes.
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.