Effects of prospective-user factors and sign design features on guessability of pharmaceutical pictograms

Patient Education and Counseling

Volumn 90, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 268-275

  Chan, Alan H S ^a   Chan, Ken W L ^a  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

Design features; Guessing; Instructions; Pharmaceutical Pictograms; User factors

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CHILD; CHINESE; COMPREHENSION; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; COMPUTER INTERFACE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DEMOGRAPHY; DRUG LABELING; EDUCATION; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HONG KONG; HUMAN; MALE; PHARMACEUTICAL PICTOGRAM; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PURCHASING; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCHOOL CHILD; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AUDIOVISUAL AIDS; CHILD; COMPREHENSION; DRUG LABELING; FEMALE; HONG KONG; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; QUESTIONNAIRES; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SEMANTICS; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84872416337     PISSN: 07383991     EISSN: 18735134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.10.009     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Osterberg L., Blaschke T. Adherence to medications. NEJM 2005, 353:487-497.
2. U.S. Pharmacopeia Examining medication errors that occur in the patient's home 2004, Retrieved from http://www.usp.org/pdf/EN/patientSafety/capsLink2004-03-01.pdf (accessed 08.06).
3. Gazmararian J.A., Baker D.W., Williams M.V., Parker R.M., Scott T.L., Green D.C., Fehrenbach S.N., Ren J., Koplan J.P. Health literacy among Medicare enrollees in a managed care organization. J Amer Med Assoc 1999, 281:545-551.
4. Hill L.H. Using visual concept mapping to communicate medication information to patients with low health literacy: a preliminary study. Second International Conference on Concept Mapping 2006.
5. Kripalani S., Robertson R., Love-Ghaffari M.H., Henderson L.E., Praska J., Strawder A., Katz M.G., Jacobson T.A. Development of an illustrated medication schedule as a low-literacy patient education tool. Patient Educ Couns 2007, 66:368-377.
6. Beers B.B., McDonald V.J., Quistberg D.A., Ravenell K.L., Asch D.A., Shea J.A. Disparities in health literacy between African American and non-African American primary care patients. J Gen Intern Med 2003, 18:169.
7. Williams M.V., Parker R.M., Baker D.W., Parikh N.S., Pitkin K., Coates W.C., Nurss J.R. Inadequate functional health literacy among patients at two public hospitals. JAMA-J Am Med Assoc 1995, 274(21):1677-1682.
8. Ngoh L.N., Shepherd M.D. Design, development, and evaluation of visuals aids for communicating prescription drug instructions to nonliterate patients in rural cameroon. Patient Educ Couns 1997, 30:257-270.
9. Dowse R., Ehlers M. Medicine labels incorporating pictograms: do they influence understanding and adherence. Patient Educ Couns 2005, 58:63-70.
10. Houts P., Doak C., Doak L., Loscalzo M. The role of pictures in improving health communication: a review of research on attention, comprehension, recall and adherence. Patient Educ Couns 2006, 61:173-190.
11. Mansoor L.E., Dowse R. Effect of pictograms on readability of patient information materials. Ann Pharmacother 2003, 37:1003-1009.
12. USP-D.I. United States Pharmacopoeia dispensing information 1989, vol. II. United States Pharmacopoeial Convention Inc, Rockville (MD).
13. Mansoor L.E., Dowse R. Design and evaluation of a new pharmaceutical pictogram sequence to convey medicine usage. Ergonomics SA 2004, 16:29-41.
14. USP-D.I. United States Pharmacopoeia dispensing information 2000, vol. II. Micromedex Inc, Englewood.
15. Dowse R., Ehlers M.S. The evaluation of pharmaceutical pictograms in a low-literate South African population. Patient Educ Couns 2001, 45:87-99.
16. Dowse R., Ehlers M. The influence of education on the interpretation of pharmaceutical pictograms for communicating medicine instructions. Int J Pharm Pract 2003, 11:11-18.
17. Goel G. A comparative study to evaluate patients interpretation of U.S.P and locally designed pharmaceutical pictograms. Pharma Times 2010, 42:16-19.
18. Hameen-Anttila K., Kemppainen K., Enlund H., Bush Patricia J., Marja A. Do pictograms improve children's understanding of medicine leaflet information. Patient Educ Couns 2004, 55:371-378.
19. Knapp P., Raynor D.K., Jebar A.H., Price S.J. Interpretation of medication pictograms by adults in the UK. Ann Pharmacother 2005, 39:1227-1233.
20. Dowse R., Ehlers M.S. Pictograms in pharmacy. Int J Pharm Pract 1998, 6:109-118.
21. I.S.O.9241-11. Ergonomics requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) - Part 11: Guidance on usability 1998, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
22. Jordan P.W. An introduction to usability 1998, Taylor & Francis, London.
23. Chan A.H.S., Ng A.W.Y. Investigation of guessability of industrial safety signs: effects of prospective-user factors and cognitive sign features. Int. J. Ind. Ergonomics 2010, 40:689-697.
24. Ng A.W.Y., Chan A.H.S. The guessability of traffic signs. Accid Anal Prev 2007, 39:1245-1257.
25. Bernardini C., Ambrogi V., Perioli L.C., Tiralti M.C., Fardella G. Comprehensibility of the package leaflets of all medicinal products for human use: a questionnaire survey about the use of symbols and pictograms. Pharmacol Res 2000, 41:679-688.
26. Silver N.C., Basin M.G., Sexton C.A., Fabbi J.L. Comprehensibility of pharmaceutical pictorials among people with mental retardation. Human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting proceedings 1998, 656-660.
27. Ringseis E.L., Caird J.K. The comprehensibilitly and legibility of twenty pharmaceutical warning pictograms. Human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting proceedings 1995, 974-978.
28. McDougall S.J.P., Curry M.B., de Bruijn O. Measuring symbol and icon characteristics: norms for concreteness, complexity, meaningfulness, familiarity, and semantic distance for 239 symbols. Behav Res Meth Ins C 1999, 31:487-519.
29. Brieger W.R., Osamor P.E., Salami K.K., Oladepo O., Otusanya S.A. Interactions between patent medicine vendors and customers in urban and rural Nigeria. Health Policy Plann 2004, 19:177-182.
30. Bruyas M.P., Le Breton B., Pauzié A. Ergonomic guidelines for the design of pictorial information. Int J Ind Ergonom 1998, 21:407-413.
31. Preece J., Rogers Y., Sharp H., Beryon D., Holland S., Carey T. Human-computer interaction 1994, Addison-Wesley, England, UK.
32. Preston C.C., Colman A.M. Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychol 2000, 104:1-15.
33. Rice J.A. Mathematical statistics and data analysis 2006, Duxbury Press, Belmont, CA. 3rd ed.
34. Lesch M.F. Comprehension and memory for warning symbols: age related differences and impact of training. J Safety Res 2003, 34:495-505.
35. Hancock H.E., Rogers W.A., Schroeder D., Fisk A.D. Safety symbol comprehension: effects of symbol type, familiarity, and age. Hum Factors: HFES 2004, 46:183-195.
36. McDougall S.J.P., Curry M.B. More than just a picture: icon interpretation in context. Proceedings of first international workshop on coping with complexity 2004, 16-17.
37. Ben-Bassat T., Shinar D. Ergonomic guidelines for traffic sign design increase sign comprehension. Hum Factors 2006, 48:182-195.
38. Blijlevens J., Creusen M.E.H., Schoormans J.P.L. How consumers perceive product appearance: the identification of three product appearance attributes. Int J Des 2009, 3:27-35.
39. Mullet K., Sano D. Designing visual interfaces: communication oriented techniques 1995, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.