We have located links that may give you full text access.
Effect of different formats for information on side effects regarding medicine users' understanding: A randomized controlled trial.
Patient Education and Counseling 2018 April
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the efficacy of presenting information on the risks of side effects from a medicine, presented in different formats.
METHODS: A randomized, parallel-group, single-center controlled trial was conducted among adult users of a training pharmacy. The information was categorized into the following groups: verbal descriptors+percentage range, percentage range and absolute percentage. The main outcomes were gist understanding and verbatim understanding, classified either as adequate or inadequate. The analyses were performed using ANOVA and Pearson's chi-square test.
RESULTS: A total of 393 participants were recruited from June to October 2015. Adequate levels of gist understanding and verbatim understanding were respectively 65.6% and 53.9% for the verbal descriptors+percentage range (n=128), 63.4% and 44.3% for percentage range (n=131), and 62.3% and 48.5% for absolute percentage (n=131), with no statistically significant difference between the groups (p=0.852 and p=0.299, respectively).
CONCLUSION: The understanding of the information was similar in all three formats, but the percentages of adequate understanding were low.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The percentage of inadequate understanding demonstrated in this study indicates that alternative formats for reporting adverse reactions need to be evaluated.
METHODS: A randomized, parallel-group, single-center controlled trial was conducted among adult users of a training pharmacy. The information was categorized into the following groups: verbal descriptors+percentage range, percentage range and absolute percentage. The main outcomes were gist understanding and verbatim understanding, classified either as adequate or inadequate. The analyses were performed using ANOVA and Pearson's chi-square test.
RESULTS: A total of 393 participants were recruited from June to October 2015. Adequate levels of gist understanding and verbatim understanding were respectively 65.6% and 53.9% for the verbal descriptors+percentage range (n=128), 63.4% and 44.3% for percentage range (n=131), and 62.3% and 48.5% for absolute percentage (n=131), with no statistically significant difference between the groups (p=0.852 and p=0.299, respectively).
CONCLUSION: The understanding of the information was similar in all three formats, but the percentages of adequate understanding were low.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The percentage of inadequate understanding demonstrated in this study indicates that alternative formats for reporting adverse reactions need to be evaluated.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app