Maria Augusta Soares1. 1. Department of Pharmacoepidemiology and Social Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Research Institute for Medicines and Pharmaceutical Sciences (iMed.UL), Lisbon University, Av Gama Pinto, 1649-003, Lisbon, Portugal. maugusta.soares@ff.ul.pt
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective and safe use of medicines depends on patients' good understanding of the pharmacotherapy. Pictograms are a communication tool, as complement of verbal/written information, to facilitate drug use and, avoiding errors, being useful for drug effectiveness and safety. OBJECTIVE: To assess the ability of pharmacy's clients, in understanding USP pictograms, establishing the relationship with their socio demographic profiles. SETTING: The study was developed in community pharmacies, in Lisbon region. METHODS: Cross sectional study, carried out in pharmacies in Lisbon. A structured questionnaire was used in pharmacies clients of 18 years old and above. Legibility of fifteen USP pictograms was studied using ISO and ANSI criteria. Correlation between the legibility of pictograms and pharmacies clients' demographic profile (age, gender, scholarship, frequency of medicines use) was evaluated. SPSS data base version 18 was used for descriptive analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Legibility of fifteen United States Pharmacopeia (USP) pictograms and, its relationship with clients' demographic data (scholarship degree, age, frequency of medicines use and, gender) was studied. RESULTS: From 751 responders, ten pictograms were legible by ISO and seven by ANSI. More than 30 % of the responders weren't able to understand five of the pictograms. It was found statistically significant relationships between some the understanding of some pictograms and clients' scholarships degree, age and frequency of medicines use. CONCLUSION: It was found that not all the fifteen tested USP pictograms were correctly comprehended by Portuguese pharmacies' clients, having found correlations with scholarship degree, daily use of medicines and age group, for some pictograms. To ensure the effectiveness of USP pictograms it is advisable to test patients' comprehension, before their use in general practice.
BACKGROUND: Effective and safe use of medicines depends on patients' good understanding of the pharmacotherapy. Pictograms are a communication tool, as complement of verbal/written information, to facilitate drug use and, avoiding errors, being useful for drug effectiveness and safety. OBJECTIVE: To assess the ability of pharmacy's clients, in understanding USP pictograms, establishing the relationship with their socio demographic profiles. SETTING: The study was developed in community pharmacies, in Lisbon region. METHODS: Cross sectional study, carried out in pharmacies in Lisbon. A structured questionnaire was used in pharmacies clients of 18 years old and above. Legibility of fifteen USP pictograms was studied using ISO and ANSI criteria. Correlation between the legibility of pictograms and pharmacies clients' demographic profile (age, gender, scholarship, frequency of medicines use) was evaluated. SPSS data base version 18 was used for descriptive analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Legibility of fifteen United States Pharmacopeia (USP) pictograms and, its relationship with clients' demographic data (scholarship degree, age, frequency of medicines use and, gender) was studied. RESULTS: From 751 responders, ten pictograms were legible by ISO and seven by ANSI. More than 30 % of the responders weren't able to understand five of the pictograms. It was found statistically significant relationships between some the understanding of some pictograms and clients' scholarships degree, age and frequency of medicines use. CONCLUSION: It was found that not all the fifteen tested USP pictograms were correctly comprehended by Portuguese pharmacies' clients, having found correlations with scholarship degree, daily use of medicines and age group, for some pictograms. To ensure the effectiveness of USP pictograms it is advisable to test patients' comprehension, before their use in general practice.
Authors: Kristine Sørensen; Stephan Van den Broucke; James Fullam; Gerardine Doyle; Jürgen Pelikan; Zofia Slonska; Helmut Brand Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: J A Gazmararian; D W Baker; M V Williams; R M Parker; T L Scott; D C Green; S N Fehrenbach; J Ren; J P Koplan Journal: JAMA Date: 1999-02-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: H Shonna Yin; Benard P Dreyer; Linda van Schaick; George L Foltin; Cheryl Dinglas; Alan L Mendelsohn Journal: Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med Date: 2008-09
Authors: Judy A Shea; Benjamin B Beers; Vanessa J McDonald; D Alex Quistberg; Karima L Ravenell; David A Asch Journal: Fam Med Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: Sunil Kripalani; Rashanda Robertson; Melissa H Love-Ghaffari; Laura E Henderson; Jessica Praska; Akilah Strawder; Marra G Katz; Terry A Jacobson Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2007-03-06