ArticleHealth science reports2025
A User-Centric Comprehension Assessment of Prescription Drug Package Inserts in China: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Health science reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A User-Centric Comprehension Assessment of Prescription Drug Package Inserts in China: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Drug package inserts (DPIs) are crucial to ensure patients use drugs appropriately. Currently, only standard DPIs are available in China. Users' comprehension of standard DPIs and patient-centered DPIs, and the factors influencing their comprehension, remain poorly understood. Aim: Our objective was to evaluate and compare users' comprehension of standard DPIs and patient-centered DPIs. Additionally, we aimed to explore the association between DPI types and users' comprehension and other influencing factors. Methods: We selected two standard DPIs and developed two corresponding patient-centered DPIs for examination in 258 participants. Participants were divided into four groups (standard DPI A and B groups, patient DPI A and B groups) and interviewed using a structured questionnaire to test their comprehension of DPIs. We scored the participants' responses and recorded the time taken during the interviews. Regression models were employed to analyze the association between DPI types and comprehension. Results: Participants in the patient DPI groups scored significantly higher than those in the standard DPI groups [9.47 (±4.56) versus 6 (±4.02) in the DPI A group; 11.94 (±2.99) versus 9.25 (±2.70) in the DPI B group, Conclusions: Comparative analysis showed patient-centered DPI design significantly improves medication comprehension, supporting its use for effective information delivery.
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.