Abstract
Objective
The objective of this study was to develop a one-page (1-page) prescription drug information leaflet (PILs) and assess their impact on the information processing variables, across 2 levels of patient involvement.
Methods
One-page PILs were developed using cognitive principles to lower mental effort and improve comprehension. An experimental, 3 × 2 repeated measures study was conducted to determine the impact of cognitive effort, manipulated using leaflet type on comprehension across 2 levels (high/low) of patient involvement. Adults (≥18 years) in a university setting in Houston were recruited for the study. Each participant was exposed to 3 different types of prescription drug information leaflet (the current practice, preexisting 1-page text-only, and 1-page PILs) for the 3 drugs (Celebrex, Ventolin HFA, Prezista) for a given involvement scenario. A prevalidated survey instrument was used to measure product knowledge, attitude toward leaflet, and intention to read.
Results
Multivariate analysis of variance indicated significant positive effect of cognitive effort, involvement, and their interaction effect across all measured variables. Mean scores for product knowledge, attitude toward leaflet, and intention to read were highest for PILs (P <.001), indicating that PILs exerted lowest cognitive effort. Univariate and post hoc analysis indicate that product knowledge significantly increases with high involvement.
Conclusion
Patients reading PILs have higher comprehension compared with the current practice and text-only prototype leaflets evaluated. Higher levels of involvement further improve participant knowledge about the drug, increase their intention to read the leaflet, and change their attitude toward the leaflet. Implementation of PILs would improve information processing for consumers by reducing their cognitive effort.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bernardini C, Ambrogi V, Fardella G, Perioli L, Grandolini G. How to improve the readability of the patient package leaflet: a survey on the use of colour, print size and layout. Pharmacol Res. 2001;43:437–443.
Liu F, Abdul-Hussain S, Mahboob S, Rai V, Kostrzewski A. How useful are medication patient information leaflets to older adults? A content, readability and layout analysis. Int J Clin Pharm. 2014;36:827–834.
Grime J, Blenkinsopp A, Raynor DK, Pollock K, Knapp P. The role and value of written information for patients about individual medicines: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2007;10:286–298.
Shrank W, Avorn J, Rolon C, Shekelle P. Medication safety: effect of content and format of prescription drug labels on readability, understanding, and medication use: a systematic review. Ann Pharmacother. 2007;41:783–801.
Ertischek MD, Schnoll SH, Gerlach KK, Sembower MA, Shiffman S. Evaluating patient understanding of written information provided with prescription medications. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safety. 2011;20:207–208.
Raynor D, Blenkinsopp A, Knapp P, et al. A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative research on the role and effectiveness of written information available to patients about individual medicines. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:iii, 1–160.
Bernardini C, Ambrogi V, Perioli LC, Tiralti MC, Fardella G. Comprehensibility of the package leaflets of all medicinal products for human use: a questionnaire survey about the use of symbols and pictograms. Pharmacol Res. 2000;41:679–688.
Pearsall BM, Araojo R. FDA studies new strategies for presentation of patient information. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2013:2168479013488881.
Sweller J. Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn Sci. 1988;12:257–285.
Cooper G. Research into Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design at UNSW. Sydney, Australia: School of Education Studies, The University of New South Wales; 1998.
Paivio A. Imagery and Verbal Processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston; 1971.
Day RS. Comprehension of prescription drug information: overview of a research program. Proceedings of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Argumentation for Consumer Healthcare; 2006.
Sansgiry SS, Cady PS, Sansgiry S. Consumer involvement: effects on information processing from over-the-counter medication labels. Health Marketing Q. 2001;19:61–78.
Engel JF, Kollat DT, Blackwell RD. Consumer behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1973.
Petty RE, Cacioppo JT, Schumann D. Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. J Consumer Res. 1983;10:135–146.
Petty RE, Unnava RH, Strathman AJ. Theories of attitude change. In: Robertson TS, Kassarjian HH, eds. Handbook of Consumer Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1991:241–280.
Katona G, Mueller E. A study of purchase decisions. In: Clark LH, ed. Consumer Behavior: The Dynamics of Consumer Reaction. New York: New York University Press; 1955:30–87.
Shrank WH, Avorn J. Educating patients about their medications: the potential and limitations of written drug information. Health Aff. 2007;26:731–740.
Wolf MS, Bailey SC, Serper M, et al. Comparative effectiveness of patient-centered strategies to improve FDA medication guides. Med Care. 2014;52:781–789.
Kish-Doto J, Scales M, Eguino-Medina P, et al. Preferences for patient medication information: what do patients want? J Health Commun. 2014;19(suppl 2):77–88.
Wilson P, Ramspacher S. Making prescription medication information user-friendly: the time has come. https://www.pm360online.com/making-prescription-medication-information-user-friendly-the-time-has-come/. Published 2013. Accessed May 5, 2017.
Wolf MS, Davis TC, Bass PF, et al. Improving prescription drug warnings to promote patient comprehension. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:50–56.
Levin JR. On functions of pictures in prose. In: Neuropsychological and cognitive processes in reading. New York: Academic Press; 1981:203.
Holbrook MB, Moore WL. Feature interactions in consumer judgments of verbal versus pictorial presentations. J Consumer Res. 1981;8:103–113.
Day RS. Alternative representations. Psychol Learn Motiv. 1988;22:261–305.
Day RS. Comprehension of prescription drug information: overview of a research program. Paper presented at: AAAI Spring Symposium: Argumentation for Consumers of Healthcare; 2006.
Boudewyns V, O’Donoghue AC, Kelly B, et al. Influence of patient medication information format on comprehension and application of medication information: A randomized, controlled experiment. Patient Educ Counsel. 2015;98:1592–1599.
Goji Ca. Catalina. https://www.catalina.com/news/news-articles/pmi-initiative-well-received-by-patients/. Accessed April 16, 2017.
Marks LJ, Olson JC. Toward a cognitive structure conceptualization of product familiarity. NA Adv Consumer Res. 1981;8.
Mitchell AA. The dimensions of advertising involvement. NA Adv Consumer Res. 1981;8.
Biehal G, Stephens D, Curio E. Attitude toward the ad and brand choice. J Advert. 1992;21:19–36.
Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112:155.
Aslani P, Hamrosi K, Feletto E, Raynor D, Knapp P, Parkinson B. Investigating Consumer Medicine Information (I-CMI) Project. Sydney: The Pharmacy Guild of Australia, Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing; 2010.
Johnson MW, Mitch WE, Sherwood J, Lopes L, Schmidt A, Hartley H. The impact of a drug information sheet on the understanding and attitude of patients about drugs. JAMA. 1986;256:2722–2724.
Butow P, Brindle E, McConnell D, Boakes R, Tattersall M. Information booklets about cancer:: factors influencing patient satisfaction and utilisation. Patient Educ Counsel. 1998;33:129–141.
Wolf MS, King J, Wilson EA, et al. Usability of FDA-approved medication guides. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:1714–1720.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Patel, H.K., Bapat, S.S., Bhansali, A.H. et al. Development of Prescription Drug Information Leaflets: Impact of Cognitive Effort and Patient Involvement on Prescription Medication Information Processing. Ther Innov Regul Sci 52, 118–129 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017716714
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017716714