ABSTRACT
<b>Objective: </b>Instructions contained in over-the-counter medicine package inserts can be hard to read because of the limited printing space. Pictograms are one means of helping users to understand important information. However, few pictogram systems have been reliably and validly evaluated. Therefore, a new method was developed to improve the clarity of each illustration and the legitimacy as a pictogram for conveying information important.<br><b>Methods: </b>Four creators developed 69 illustrations, each of which expressed one of 24 instructions in the package insert of an H2 blocker. In a survey, participants (449 university undergraduate and graduate students and 103 pharmacy users) were asked to describe the possible meaning of each illustration and to provide their personal suggestions for improvement. To evaluate comprehension of information, each instruction was broken into two or three different parts. Comprehension level was calculated by: (number of people who answered correctly) × 100 / (total number of respondents). Existing pictograms were included to compare comprehension levels for the same instructions.<br><b>Results: </b>Using 67% as the minimum standard for comprehension, we classified each illustration into one of three categories: “no need for improvement,” “need for partial improvement,” and “need for total improvement.” The students and pharmacy users tended to accurately interpret the possible meanings of illustrations that were familiar to them.<br><b>Conclusion: </b>Breaking one instruction of the package insert into a few important pieces of information was useful for determining the level of improvement needed for each illustration. Evaluating how well each illustration conveys important information in the instructions through two steps was also beneficial, which are to improve the illustration’s clarity with students and its legitimacy among pharmacy users for fulfilling the intended functions of a pictogram.
ABSTRACT
We explored the association between understanding a proper use of over-the-counter cold medicines and a choice of information source to purchase such medicines. We conducted an internet survey in March 2011 regarding false perceptions about cold medicines as well as understanding of package inserts. Respondents (20〜69 years old)to the main survey were individuals who purchased cold medicines based on TV commercials (CM group) and those who purchased these medications in consultation with pharmacists (consultation group). We surveyed 121 and 159 respondents in the CM and consultation groups, respectively. We calculated the principal component scores for false perceptions of cold medicines and the respondents’ understanding of the package inserts. The median scores were 0.20 (CM group) and -0.08 (consultation group) false perceptions, and -0.18 (CM group) and 0.15 (consultation group) for understanding. The Mann-Whitney <i>U</i>-test revealed that the CM group had more misconceptions regarding cold medicines compared with the consultation group (<i>P</i><0.001). Furthermore, the consultation group acquired greater understanding of the package inserts than the reference CM group (<i>P</i>＝0.005). These results suggest an association between understanding the proper use of over-the-counter cold medicines and choice sources of information on purchasing these medicines. They further suggest that a lack of knowledge or understanding of cold medicines does not lead to consultations with a pharmacist about the purchase.
ABSTRACT
<b>Objective </b>: To determine how much label information on over-the-counter (OTC) medicines is contained on packaging, we investigated the items, description methods, and area of label information on packages.<br><b>Methods </b>: We selected 75 common cold remedy products for investigation and classified the items into 3 categories (“items for use”, “items with a regulation requirement”, “items related to product image”) and measured the space given to each item in the total package area.<br><b>Results </b>: All 75 products had “items with a regulation requirement (total 13 items),” but 8 products (only 2 manufacturers) had “consult a physician or pharmacist before use,” which was not a regulation requirement. There were differences in description methods, especially in “caution” and “product name.” Sixty percent of the OTC products used non-red characters with no box-frame, and 11% used red characters and box-frames. The description order was not standardized, but “caution” was located in the lowest space on 80% of products. Many item descriptions appeared in one place, but “product name” generally appeared in more than 4 places. While 4.5 to 8.0 points were commonly given for “items for use,” 16 to 100 points were given for “product name,” and the difference in number of points was greater than 6-fold among products. The percentage of average area for “items related to product image” (6.1%) was 2-fold greater than for “items for use” (3.1%) and “items with a regulation requirement” (2.9%). Almost half of the total package area was blank space.<br><b>Conclusion </b>: Current descriptions in label information vary among items, products, and pharmaceutical companies. Rules on describing information on OTC medicine packaging are thus necessary.