Evaluation of the design and structure of electronic medication labels to improve patient health knowledge and safety: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Patient misunderstanding of instructions on medication labels is a common cause of medication errors and can result in ineffective treatment. One way to better improve patient comprehension of medication labels is by optimizing the content and display of the information. OBJECTIVES: To review comparative studies that have evaluated the design of a medication label to improve patient knowledge or safety. METHODS: Studies were selected from systematic computerized literature searches performed in PubMed, Embase (Elsevier), Cochrane Central (EBSCO), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature-CINAHL (EBSCO), and Web of Science (Thomson Reuters). Eligible studies included comparative studies that evaluated the design of a medication label to improve patient knowledge or safety. RESULTS: Of the 246 articles identified in the primary literature search, 14 studies were selected for data abstraction. Thirteen of these studies significantly impacted the patient understanding of medication labels. Three studies included a measure of patient safety in terms of medication adherence and dosing errors. The utilization of patient-centered language, pictograms/graphics, color/white space, or font optimization was seen to have the most impact on patient comprehension. CONCLUSION: It is essential to present medication information in an optimal manner for patients. This can be done by standardizing the content, display, and format of medication labels to improve understanding and medication usage. Evidence-based design principles can, therefore, be used to facilitate the standardization of the structure of label content for both print and electronic devices. However, more research needs to be done on validating the implications of label content display to measure its impact on patient safety. SYSTEMIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022347510 ( http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ ).

Enhancing Access Through Language-Tailored Approach in Telehealth and Veterans Video Connect: Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Veterans Satisfaction Assessment.

INTRODUCTION: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) can impact language processing, necessitating language-tailored approaches. Telehealth may expand rural Veterans' access but has unknown feasibility for language preferences. This study explored telehealth/Veterans Video Connect satisfaction for Spanish/English TBI screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the VA Caribbean Healthcare System Institutional Review Board and the Research and Development Committee. Mixed methods evaluated telehealth satisfaction in Veterans receiving TBI assessments from October 2021 to October 2023. Surveys included the 16-item Clinical Video Telehealth (CVT) questionnaire on communication, technical factors, coordination, and overall satisfaction, and the 21-item Telemedicine Satisfaction and Usefulness Questionnaire (TSUQ) examining usefulness, ease of use, manners, quality, and satisfaction. Mean domain/item scores were calculated among 57 Veterans, 12 English, and 45 Spanish-speaking. Semi-structured interviews also elicited user experiences from 4 providers and 5 Veterans. Transcripts underwent qualitative coding for themes using Atlas.ti.8. RESULTS: On CVT (0-5 scale), overall satisfaction averaged 4.50 (English) and 4.69 (Spanish). Lowest scoring item for English users was easy video connection (4.25), while unclear expectations had the lowest Spanish score (3.60). For TSUQ, overall mean scores were 4.50 (English) and 4.67 (Spanish), with improved health post-telehealth having the lowest average (English 3.33, Spanish 3.67). Qualitatively, Veterans and providers noted strengths like access and communication but weaknesses around connectivity, care delays, and privacy. Differences emerged regarding convenience (Veterans) versus operational barriers (providers). There was a strong positive correlation for Spanish surveys and a moderate correlation for English surveys (r = 0.71 Spanish surveys, r = 0.69 English surveys) between TSUQ and CVT for individual respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Patients conveyed positive experiences, but qualitative data revealed actionable targets for optimization like infrastructure and coordination improvements. Key limitations include small samples and lack of comparison to in-person care. Still, high satisfaction coupled with specific user feedback highlights telehealth's potential while directing enhancements. The results found high Veteran satisfaction with Spanish/English TBI telehealth, but mixed methods illuminated salient domains for better accommodating user needs, particularly regarding logistics and technology. Rigorously integrating experiences with metrics over expanded diverse samples and modalities can further guide refinements to enhance telehealth with a language-tailored approach.