ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2024
The Challenges for EU User Testing Policies for Patient Information Leaflets.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient perspectives on drug recalls in the Netherlands: a qualitative study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Readability of patient information leaflets for commonly used medicines in the UK, Germany and Türkiye: a cross-sectional document analysis.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Patient Preferences for Electronic Versus Paper Patient Information Leaflets: A Survey Among Patients in Sweden.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Observational
- Patient use, understanding, and behaviour toward patient information leaflets for medicines: a cross-sectional study of adults in Italy.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient information leaflets (PILs) are essential tools in healthcare, providing crucial information about medication use. In the European Union, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) oversees the regulation and standardisation of PILs to ensure their readability and accessibility. However, challenges persist in ensuring these documents are comprehensible and user-friendly. This study employs a qualitative analytical approach, reviewing existing literature and regulatory documents to identify gaps in the EU user testing policies for PILs. It focuses on the diversity of participant samples, the independence of the testing process, and the robustness of user testing protocols. Findings indicate that current user testing practices often lack diversity and may be biased when pharmaceutical companies conduct their own tests. Additionally, there is a lack of user testing protocols for translated PILs, potentially compromising their accuracy and cultural relevance. To improve the efficacy of PILs, it is essential to include diverse and representative samples in user testing, mandate independent third-party evaluations, implement protocols for user testing on translated PILs, and ensure continuous updates to guidelines based on the latest best practices in health communication. These measures will enhance patient safety and understanding of medication information.
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.