Background:The readability and comprehensibility of the patient information leaflets (PILs) provided with antidiabetic medications are of questionable standards; this issue negatively affects adherence to drug therapy, especially in patients with limited literacy skills. Objective: To evaluate the readability and comprehensibility of PILs supplied with medications used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Qatar. Methods: All PILs of the antidiabetic medications in Qatar were evaluated using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score for readability. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning-Fog Index, and SMOG Grading were used to estimate the comprehensibility of PILs in terms of school grade levels. Results: A total of 45 PILs were evaluated: 32 (71.1%) PILs of brand-name products and 13 (28.9%) for generics. Nine (20%) of the PILs were in English only; 8 (17.8%) were in English, Arabic, and French; and 28 (62.2%) were in English and Arabic. The mean FRE score was 37.71 (±15.85), and the most readable PIL had FRE score of 62. The mean scores for the comprehensibility evaluations were 10.96 (±2.67), 15.02 (±2.52), and 11.41 (±1.6) for the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning-Fog Index, and SMOG Grading, respectively. The most commonly used antidiabetic medication was metformin with 1372.9 (±552.9) as PILs’ mean number of words. Conclusion: Only 2.2% of PILs had acceptable readability scores. All PILs could be comprehended by at least an 11th grade student, which exceeds the recommended grade level for health-related materials. Approximately 20% of these PILs were in English only and were not readable by most patients.
Nielsen-BohlmanLPanzerAMKindigDA, eds. Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2004.
2.
CoulterAEllinsJ.Effectiveness of strategies for informing, educating, and involving patients. BMJ. 2007;335:24-27.
3.
US Department of Health and Human Services. National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2010.
4.
MurrayS.Health Literacy in Canada: Initial Results From the International Adult Literacy and Skills Survey. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Council on Learning;2007.
5.
SahmLJWolfMSCurtisLMMcCarthyS.Prevalence of limited health literacy among Irish adults. J Health Commun. 2012;17(suppl 3):100-108.
6.
NutbeamD.The evolving concept of health literacy. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67:2072-2078.
BishopFLSalmonC.Advertising, expectations and informed consent: the contents and functions of acupuncture leaflets. Acupunct Med. 2013;31:351-357.
9.
KooMMKrassIAslaniP.Factors influencing consumer use of written drug information. Ann Pharmacother. 2003;37:259-267.
10.
KooMKrassIAslaniP.Enhancing patient education about medicines: factors influencing reading and seeking of written medicine information. Health Expect. 2006;9:174-187.
11.
HovyEKingMPopescu-BelisA.Principles of context-based machine translation evaluation. Machine Translation. 2002;17:43-75.
12.
LukATaskerNRaynorDKAslaniP.Written medicine information from English-speaking countries—how does it compare?Ann Pharmacother. 2010;44:285-294.
13.
HamrosiKDickinsonRKnappP. It’s for your benefit: exploring patients’ opinions about the inclusion of textual and numerical benefit information in medicine leaflets. Int J Pharm Pract. 2013;21:216-225.
14.
BorgsteedeSDWestermanMJKokILMeeuseJCde VriesTPHugtenburgJG.Factors related to high and low levels of drug adherence according to patients with type 2 diabetes. Int J Clin Pharm. 2011;33:779-787.
15.
HamrosiKKRaynorDKAslaniP.Pharmacist, general practitioner and consumer use of written medicine information in Australia: are they on the same page?Res Social Adm Pharm. 2014;10:656-668.
16.
SukkariSRAl HumaidanASSasichLD.The usefulness and scientific accuracy of private sector Arabic language patient drug information leaflets. Saudi Pharm J. 2012;20:211-215.
17.
KheirNAwaisuARadouiAEl BadawiAJeanLDowseR.Development and evaluation of pictograms on medication labels for patients with limited literacy skills in a culturally diverse multiethnic population. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2014;10:720-730.
18.
BenerAZirieMJanahiIMAl-HamaqAOMusallamMWarehamNJ.Prevalence of diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes mellitus and its risk factors in a population-based study of Qatar. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2009;84:99-106.
19.
OsbornCYCavanaughKWallstonKAWhiteRORothmanRL.Diabetes numeracy: an overlooked factor in understanding racial disparities in glycemic control. Diabetes Care. 2009;32:1614-1619.
20.
SchillingerDPietteJGrumbachK. Closing the loop: physician communication with diabetic patients who have low health literacy. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:83-90.
21.
FinchamJE.Advancing Prescription Medicine Compliance: New Paradigms, New Practices. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis; 1997.
22.
WangLWMillerMJSchmittMRWenFK.Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: application, results, and recommendations. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2013;9:503-516.
23.
FriedmanDBHoffman-GoetzL.A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and web-based cancer information. Health Educ Behav. 2006;33:352-373.
24.
ZamanianMHeydariP.Readability of texts: state of the art. Theory Pract Lang Stud. 2012;2:43-53.
25.
FleschR.A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32:221-233.
26.
KeeneySHassonFMcKennaH.Consulting the oracle: ten lessons from using the Delphi technique in nursing research. J Adv Nurs. 2006;53:205-212.
27.
Peter KincaidJFishburneRPRogersRLChissomBS.Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and Flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a006655.pdf. Published February 1975. Accessed April 14, 2017.
28.
McLaughlinGH.SMOG grading: a new readability formula. J Reading. 1969;12:639-646.
29.
GunningR.The Technique of Clear Writing. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1952.
30.
LeyPFlorioT.The use of readability formulas in health care. Psychol Health Med. 1996;1:7-28.
31.
BadarudeenSSabharwalS.Assessing readability of patient education materials: current role in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:2572-2580.
32.
EltoraiAEHanATruntzerJDanielsAH.Readability of patient education materials on the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine website. Phys Sportsmed. 2014;42:125-130.
33.
RaynorDKSvarstadBKnappP. Consumer medication information in the United States, Europe, and Australia: a comparative evaluation. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2007;47:717-724.
34.
HirschbergISeidelGStrechDBastianHDierksML.Evidence-based health information from the users’ perspective—a qualitative analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:405.
35.
Pander MaatHLentzL. Improving the usability of patient information leaflets. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80:113-119.
36.
KesselsRP.Patients’ memory for medical information. J R Soc Med. 2003;96:219-222.
37.
MansoorLEDowseR.Medicines information and adherence in HIV/AIDS patients. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2006;31:7-15.
38.
MuhlhauserIBergerM.Evidence-based patient information in diabetes. Diabet Med. 2000;17:823-829.
39.
Al-AqeelSA.Evaluation of medication package inserts in Saudi Arabia. Drug Healthc Patient Saf. 2012;4:33-38.
40.
MottramDRReedC.Comparative evaluation of patient information leaflets by pharmacists, doctors and the general public. J Clin Pharm Ther. 1997;22:127-134.
41.
BoulosMN.British internet-derived patient information on diabetes mellitus: is it readable?Diabetes Technol Ther. 2005;7:528-535.
42.
KusecSBrborovicOSchillingerD.Diabetes websites accredited by the Health On the Net Foundation Code of Conduct: readable or not?Stud Health Technol Inform. 2003;95:655-660.
43.
WilliamsonJMMartinAG.Analysis of patient information leaflets provided by a district general hospital by the Flesch and Flesch-Kincaid method. Int J Clin Pract. 2010;64:1824-1831.
44.
ClausonKAZeng-TreitlerQKandulaS.Readability of patient and health care professional targeted dietary supplement leaflets used for diabetes and chronic fatigue syndrome. J Altern Complement Med. 2010;16:119-124.
45.
HoseyGMFreemanWLStracqualursiFGohdesD.Designing and evaluating diabetes education material for American Indians. Diabetes Educ. 1990;16:407-414.
46.
HadjipavlouMKhanSRaneA.Readability of patient information leaflets for urological conditions and treatments. J Clin Urol. 2013;6:302-305.
47.
LeeDYArmourCKrassI.The development and evaluation of written medicines information for type 2 diabetes. Health Educ Res. 2007;22:918-930.
48.
NasirLSNasirAK.Introducing Arabic language patient education materials in Jordan. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60:142-145.
49.
OverlandJEHoskinsPLMcGillMJYueDK.Low literacy: a problem in diabetes education. Diabet Med. 1993;10:847-850.
50.
FuchsJHippiusM.Inappropriate dosage instructions in package inserts. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;67:157-168.
51.
HoffmannTWorrallL.Designing effective written health education materials: considerations for health professionals. Disabil Rehabil. 2004;26:1166-1173.
52.
MorrowDGWeinerMYoungJSteinleyDDeerMMurrayMD.Improving medication knowledge among older adults with heart failure: a patient-centered approach to instruction design. Gerontologist. 2005;45:545-552.
