OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of patient-centered label (PCL) instructions on the knowledge and comprehension of prescription drug use compared to standard instructions. METHODS: A total of 94 participants recruited from an outpatient clinic in Ireland were each randomly assigned to receive: (1) standard prescription instructions written as times per day (usual care), (2) PCL instructions that specify explicit timing with standard intervals (morning, noon, evening, bedtime) or with mealtime anchors (both PCL), or (3) PCL instructions with a graphic aid to visually depict dose and timing of the medication (PCL + Graphic). The outcome was correct interpretation of the instructions. RESULTS: PCL instructions were more likely to be correctly interpreted than the standard instructions [adjusted relative risk (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98-1.18]. The inclusion of the graphic aid (PCL + Graphic) decreased the rates of correct interpretation compared to PCL instructions alone (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91-1.05). There was a significant interaction between instruction type and health literacy (p = 0.01). Those with limited health literacy were more likely to correctly interpret the PCL labels (91%) than the standard labels (66%), and those with adequate health literacy performed equally well. CONCLUSION: The PCL approach may improve patients' understanding and use of their medication regimen.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of patient-centered label (PCL) instructions on the knowledge and comprehension of prescription drug use compared to standard instructions. METHODS: A total of 94 participants recruited from an outpatient clinic in Ireland were each randomly assigned to receive: (1) standard prescription instructions written as times per day (usual care), (2) PCL instructions that specify explicit timing with standard intervals (morning, noon, evening, bedtime) or with mealtime anchors (both PCL), or (3) PCL instructions with a graphic aid to visually depict dose and timing of the medication (PCL + Graphic). The outcome was correct interpretation of the instructions. RESULTS: PCL instructions were more likely to be correctly interpreted than the standard instructions [adjusted relative risk (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98-1.18]. The inclusion of the graphic aid (PCL + Graphic) decreased the rates of correct interpretation compared to PCL instructions alone (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91-1.05). There was a significant interaction between instruction type and health literacy (p = 0.01). Those with limited health literacy were more likely to correctly interpret the PCL labels (91%) than the standard labels (66%), and those with adequate health literacy performed equally well. CONCLUSION: The PCL approach may improve patients' understanding and use of their medication regimen.
Authors: Stacy Cooper Bailey; Stephen D Persell; Kara L Jacobson; Ruth M Parker; Michael S Wolf Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2009-01-06 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Michael S Wolf; Terry C Davis; Laura M Curtis; Jennifer A Webb; Stacy Cooper Bailey; William H Shrank; Lee Lindquist; Bernice Ruo; Mary V Bocchini; Ruth M Parker; Alastair J J Wood Journal: Med Care Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Terry C Davis; Michael S Wolf; Pat F Bass; Jason A Thompson; Hugh H Tilson; Marolee Neuberger; Ruth M Parker Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-11-29 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Michael S Wolf; Terry C Davis; William Shrank; David N Rapp; Pat F Bass; Ulla M Connor; Marla Clayman; Ruth M Parker Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2007-06-22
Authors: Michael S Wolf; Paul Shekelle; Niteesh K Choudhry; Jessica Agnew-Blais; Ruth M Parker; William H Shrank Journal: Med Care Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: William H Shrank; Jessica Agnew-Blais; Niteesh K Choudhry; Michael S Wolf; Aaron S Kesselheim; Jerry Avorn; Paul Shekelle Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2007-09-10
Authors: Laura M Curtis; Rebecca J Mullen; Allison Russell; Aimee Fata; Stacy C Bailey; Gregory Makoul; Michael S Wolf Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2016-07-02
Authors: Danielle M McCarthy; Laura M Curtis; D Mark Courtney; Kenzie A Cameron; Patrick M Lank; Howard S Kim; Lauren A Opsasnick; Abbie E Lyden; Stephanie J Gravenor; Andrea M Russell; Morgan R Eifler; Scott I Hur; Megan E Rowland; Surrey M Walton; Enid Montague; Kwang-Youn A Kim; Michael S Wolf Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Michael S Wolf; Terry C Davis; Laura M Curtis; Stacy Cooper Bailey; JoAnn Pearson Knox; Ashley Bergeron; Mercedes Abbet; William H Shrank; Ruth M Parker; Alastair J J Wood Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-08-19 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Samuel G Smith; Rachel O'Conor; Laura M Curtis; Katie Waite; Ian J Deary; Michael Paasche-Orlow; Michael S Wolf Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Danielle M McCarthy; Terry C Davis; Jennifer P King; Rebecca J Mullen; Stacy C Bailey; Marina Serper; Kara L Jacobson; Ruth M Parker; Michael S Wolf Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2013
Authors: Patrizio Zanobini; Chiara Lorini; Alberto Baldasseroni; Claudia Dellisanti; Guglielmo Bonaccorsi Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-02-06 Impact factor: 3.390