A Method to Evaluate Patient Information Leaflets

Abstract

The aim of this study was to develop a useful method for evaluating patient information leaflets by comparing the result of expert and patient evaluations. The hypothesis was that if there was a correlation between the results of these evaluations it would be acceptable to only do expert review for patient information leaflets currently in use.

Experts and patients examined patient information leaflets from 30 common medicines, following European Union Directive 92/27 EEC, which outlined the legal requirements for patient information leaflets. The scoring system allowed a direct comparison between the outcomes of expert and patient examinations. We found a significant correlation between the expert and patient examinations of the content of the patient information leaflets. We conclude that patient information leaflets that score above average on the expert examination of content (ie, adherence to the directive) will also score above the average on the patient examination.

Keywords

Patient information leaflets Readability Comprehensibility

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Directive 92/27 EEC. www.europa.eu.int.

Royal Pharmaceutical Society. From Compliance to Concordance. Achieving Shared Coals in Medicine Taking. London. United Kingtom: Royal Pharmaceutical Society; 1997.

Raynor

Patient compliance—the pharmacist's role. Int J Pharm Prac. 1992;1:126–35.

Morris

Aikin

The “pharmacokinetics” of patient communications. Drug Inf J. 2001;35:509–527.

Raynor

Knapp

Do patients see, read and retain the new mandatory medicines information leaflets?. Pharm J. 2000;264:260–270.

Raynor

Britten

Why medicines information leaflets do nothing to promote concordance. Pharm J. 2001;267:120.

Collier

Patient-information leaflets and pre-scriber competence. Lancet. 1998;352:1724.

Coulter

Evidence based patient information. Br Med J. 1998;317:225–226.

Rolland

Reading level of drug information printouts: A barrier to effective communication of patient medication information. Drug Inf J. 2000;34:1329–1338.

10.

EMEA on testing leaflet readability. Scrip. 2000; 2507:2.

11.

Nilsson

JLG

Johansson

Wennberg

Large differences between prescribed and dispensed medicines could indicate undertreatment. Drug Inf J. 1995;29:1243–1248.

12.

Anderson

Lix and rix: Variations of a little known readability index, J Reading. 1983; 26:490–496.

13.

Björnsson

Läsbarhet. (in Swedish) Stockholm, Sweden: Liber; 1968.

14.

Flesch

A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32:221–333.

15.

Fry

A readability formula that saves time. J Reading. 1968;11:513–516.

16.

McLaughlin***

SMOG grading—a new readability formula. J Reading. 1969;12:639–646.