The Comprehension, Cosmetics, Convenience, Content, and Credibility of Infographic Patient Information Leaflets (iPILs) Compared to Existing PILs (ePILs)

信息图式患者信息单(iPIL)与现有患者信息单(ePIL)的易懂性、美观性、便捷性、内容和可信度比较

阅读:1

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Existing patient information leaflets (ePILs), mandated by the FDA to accompany new prescriptions, are difficult to read and understand due to their complexity and poor visual design, especially for populations with low health literacy and low English proficiency. In this study, we developed infographic-based PILs (iPILs) with a concise question-and-answer format, emphasizing essential information, as specified by the FDA. This study compared iPILs and ePILs using the 5C factors: comprehension, cosmetics, convenience, content, and credibility, as perceived by English-speaking and Spanish-speaking populations. Methods: This multicenter, experimental survey study assessed the 5C factors. English and Spanish-speaking adults on ≥1 chronic medication were recruited from community pharmacies in California (CA) and Illinois (IL). They were stratified to review either an ePIL or an iPIL for one of four common medications. They completed a Medication Knowledge Quiz (MKQ) to show their comprehension using six open-ended questions. Subsequently, they received both PIL versions and answered preference questions about the 4C and media format and, lastly, about demographic and health literacy questions. Results: A total of 235 participants completed the surveys at three sites (CA-English, CA-Spanish, and IL-English), with differing participant characteristics. The CA-Spanish participants scored the lowest on health literacy and the number of health conditions. The MKQ scores for those using the iPILs were significantly higher than for those using the ePILs across all groups. They significantly correlated with health literacy results for the ePILs (r = 0.394, p < 0.001). The participants preferred the iPILs over the ePILs for four of the C factors, barring one content question. Regardless of age, printed formats were preferred (64.7%)-alone or with digital formats (21.3%)-over digital formats alone (3.4%). Overall, 79.1% of the participants preferred iPILs, 11.9% preferred ePILs, and 8.9% preferred either version. Conclusions: The infographic-based patient information leaflets (iPILs) were easier to read, navigate, and understand, making them more accessible to individuals with varying levels of health literacy. Infographic-based leaflets outperformed existing ones in user comprehension and were preferred due to their simple layout, ease of navigation, and helpfulness.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。