OBJECTIVES: Most current prescription labels fail to meet print guidelines, especially in print size. We therefore compared the legibility of current prescription medication labels against the legibility of prototype labels, based on current guidelines for legibility. METHOD: Sample medication labels were obtained from pharmacies, and prototype medication labels were developed according to legibility guidelines from nongovernmental organizations and pharmacy organizations. Three groups of participants, consisting of older adults with normal vision, older adults with visual impairment and younger adults with visual impairment (total N = 71) took part. Participants were asked to read and rank the labels. Reading speed and accuracy were determined. RESULTS: Accuracies were high (75%-100%), and there were no significant differences between samples or prototypes or between groups. Prototypes, however, were read faster than samples (p < 0.001). Subjectively, participants preferred the largest print option (p < 0.001) and instructions with the numbers written in highlighted uppercase words (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: The results indicate that improvements to the label would include larger print size, a consistent layout with left justification and using upper case with highlighting for emphasis of the numbers in the instructions.
OBJECTIVES: Most current prescription labels fail to meet print guidelines, especially in print size. We therefore compared the legibility of current prescription medication labels against the legibility of prototype labels, based on current guidelines for legibility. METHOD: Sample medication labels were obtained from pharmacies, and prototype medication labels were developed according to legibility guidelines from nongovernmental organizations and pharmacy organizations. Three groups of participants, consisting of older adults with normal vision, older adults with visual impairment and younger adults with visual impairment (total N = 71) took part. Participants were asked to read and rank the labels. Reading speed and accuracy were determined. RESULTS: Accuracies were high (75%-100%), and there were no significant differences between samples or prototypes or between groups. Prototypes, however, were read faster than samples (p < 0.001). Subjectively, participants preferred the largest print option (p < 0.001) and instructions with the numbers written in highlighted uppercase words (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: The results indicate that improvements to the label would include larger print size, a consistent layout with left justification and using upper case with highlighting for emphasis of the numbers in the instructions.
Authors: D A L Maberley; H Hollands; J Chuo; G Tam; J Konkal; M Roesch; A Veselinovic; M Witzigmann; K Bassett Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 3.775