Improving the usability of patient information leaflets

Patient Education and Counseling

Volumn 80, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 113-119

  Pander Maat, Henk ^a   Lentz, Leo ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Comprehension; Health communication; Package inserts; Package leaflets; Patient education; Patient information leaflets; Readability; Usability

Indexed keywords

BISOPROLOL; OXAZEPAM; ROSUVASTATIN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG INFORMATION; DRUG PACKAGING; EUROPEAN UNION; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MALE; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PATIENT EDUCATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; WRITING;

ADULT; AGED; COMPREHENSION; DATA COLLECTION; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; HEALTH COMMUNICATION; HEALTH LITERACY; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAMPHLETS; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC;

EID: 77953539007     PISSN: 07383991     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.030     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Gall I., Prigat A. Why organizations continue to create information leaflets with readability and usability problems: an exploratory study. Health Educ Res 2005, 20:485-493.
2. Fuchs J., Hippius M. Inappropriate dosage instructions in package inserts. Patient Educ Couns 2007, 67:157-168.
3. European Commission A guideline on the readability of the label and package leaflet of medicinal products for human use 1998.
4. Co-ordination Group for Mutual Recognition and Decentralized Procedures-Human (CMD(h)) Annotated QRD template for MR/DC procedures 2006, http://www.emea.europa.eu/htms/human/qrd/qrdtemplate.htm.
5. Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community Code relating to medicinal products for human use. As amended by Directives 2002/98/EC, 2004/24/EC and 2004/27/EC, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/pharmaceuticals/eudralex/vol-1/consol_2004/human_code.pdf.
6. Sless D., Wiseman R. Writing about medicines for people. usability guidelines for consumer medicine information 1997, Communication Research Institute of Australia, Canberra. second ed.
7. EFPIA. EFPIA General Recommendations for Readability User Testing of Package Leaflets for Medicinal Products for Human Use Submitted or Approved under the European Centralized Procedure 2003. Revised version: March 2003. http://www.zdrave.net/DOCUMENT/INSTITUTE/e-library/EFPIA//12_Kniga/RecommendationPLtest.pdf.
8. Lentz L., Pander Maat H. Functional analysis for document design. Tech Commun 2004, 51:387-399.
9. Nink K, Schröder H. Zu Riskiken und Nebenwirkungen: Lesen Sie die Packungsbeilage? Bonn: Wissenschaftliches Institut der AOK (WIdO), http://wido.de/fileadmin/wido/downloads/pdf_arzneimittel/wido_arz_inh-mat53_1005.pdf.
10. Van Waerde K. Measuring the quality of information in medical package leaflets: harmful or helpful?. Inf Des J 2008, 16:216-228.
11. Day R.S. Comprehension of prescription drug information: overview of a research program. Proceedings of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence 2006, www.aaai.org.
12. Wright P. Designing healthcare advice for the public. Handbook of applied cognition 1999, 695-724. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK. F. Durso (Ed.).
13. Morrow D.G., Weiner M., Young J., Steinley D., Deer M., Murray M. Improving medication knowledge among older adults with heart failure: a patient-centered approach to instruction design. The Gerontol 2005, 45:545-552.
14. Mosenthal P.B. Defining prose task characteristics for use in computer-adaptive testing and instruction. Am Educ Res J 1998, 35:269-307.
15. Kools M., Ruiter R.A.C., Van de Wiel M.W.J., Kok G. The effects of headings in information mapping on search speed and evaluation of a brief health education text. J Inf Sci 2008, 34:833-844.
16. Williams T.R., Spyridakis J.H. Visual discriminability of headings in text. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 1992, 35:64-70.
17. Lorch F., Lorch E.P., Klusewitz M.A. Effects of typographical cues on reading and recall of text. Contemp Educ Psychol 1995, 20:51-64.
18. Morrow D., Leirer V., Altieri P. List formats improve medication instructions for older adults. Educ Gerontol 1995, 21:151-166.
19. Kieras D.E. Good and bad structure in simple paragraphs: effects on apparent theme, reading time, and recall. J Verb Learn Behav 1978, 17:13-28.
20. Morrow D.G., Leirer V.O., Andrassy J.M., Decker Tanke E. Medication instruction design: younger and older adult schemas for taking medication. Hum Factors 1996, 38:556-573.
21. Keselman A, Tse T, Crowell J, Browne A, Ngo L, Zeng Q. Assessing Consumer Health Vocabulary Familiarity. J Med Internet Res 2007;9. Published online, March 2007, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi%3F%26pubmedid=17478414.
22. Koo M.M., Krass I., Aslani P. Evaluation of written medicine information: validation of the Consumer Information Rating Form. Ann Pharmacol 2007, 41:951-956.
23. Pander Maat H., Lentz L. Patient information leaflets: a functional content analysis and an evaluation study. Functional communication quality 1994, 137-148. Rodopi, Amsterdam. L. Van Waes (Ed.).
24. Sless D., Shrensky R. Writing about medicines for people. Usability guidelines for consumer medicine information 2006, Australian Self-Medication Industry. third ed.
25. Pander Maat H, Lentz L. How does the QRD-template for patient information leaflets fit users' expectations? Two card sorting studies, submitted for publication.