Content uploaded by Jack M Rosenberg
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jack M Rosenberg on Jun 17, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
I
n 1996, Public Law 104-180 was en-
acted, mandating that, by 2006, 95% of
patients receive useful written informa-
tion with their dispensed medications.
1
Since the enactment of this law, studies
have been conducted to assess the distri-
bution and quality of written patient in-
formation
2- 4
; however, information on
the percentage of patients who actually
read the provided information is scant.
Data from 1981 indicate that the mean
percentage of patients claiming to read
written information provided with 3 dif-
ferent drugs was 72%.
5
To identify more recent data on the
percentage of patients who read the med
-
ication information leaflet, we conducted
a search of MEDLINE (1966–March
2006),
International Pharmaceutical
Abstracts
(1970–March 2006), and the
Internet, using Google Scholar (searched
March 2006) with combinations of these
key words: written, information, leaflets,
medication, patients, consumers, and/or
read. Although readership rates in coun
-
tries other than the US have been report-
ed to range from 40% to 89%,
6- 8
our
search did not identify any recent US
studies to provide such statistics.
The primary objective of this study
was to evaluate whether patients read
medication information leaflets, herein referred to as
leaflets. We also sought to assess patients’ opinions con-
cer
ning the understandability and usefulness of these
leaflets.
Methods
In September 2005, a survey of patients in the New
York City metropolitan area was conducted. Participants
were recruited at community pharmacies that served as ex-
periential practice sites for senior pharmacy students en-
rolled in the Doctor of Pharmacy program at the Arnold &
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy
n
2007 May, Volume 41
n
777
Patients’ Use and Perception of Medication Information Leaflets
Joseph P Nathan, Tina Zerilli, Lorraine A Cicero, and Jack M Rosenberg
www.theannals.com
Ambulatory Care
Author information provided at the end of the text.
BACKGROUND: Federal law mandates that at least 95% of patients receive useful
written information with new medications. Recent data concerning whether
patients read such leaflets are lacking.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether patients read non–manufacturer-developed
leaflets and assess patients’ opinions concerning the understandability and
usefulness of these leaflets.
METHODS: Patients were surveyed at 32 community pharmacies in the New York
City metropolitan area. The main outcome measures were the percentage of
patients who read the leaflet provided with new and refilled medications and the
perceived understandability and usefulness of the leaflet. Descriptive statistics
were used to analyze the results.
RESULTS: A total of 307 patients were surveyed. For leaflets provided with new
medications, 151 (49.2%), 65 (21.2%), 49 (16.0%), and 42 (13.7%) reported
reading the leaflets always, often, seldom, or never, respectively. For refilled
medications, 64 (21.6%), 41 (13.9%), 78 (26.4%), and 113 (38.2%) of the 296
respondents reported reading the leaflets always, often, seldom, or never,
respectively. Of 267 patients who read the leaflets provided with new or refilled
prescriptions at least seldom, 258 (96.6%) responded to the question concerning
its understandability and 257 (96.3%) responded to the question concerning its
usefulness. One hundred forty-five (56.2%), 89 (34.5%), 22 (8.5%), and 2 (0.8%)
reported that the leaflet was very easy
, somewhat easy, somewhat difficult, and
very difficult to understand, respectively, and 164 (63.8%), 90 (35.0%), and 3
(1.2%) reported that the leaflet was very useful, somewhat useful, and not useful,
respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Approximately two-thirds of the patients surveyed reported
reading the leaflets provided with new medications at least often. The majority
reported the leaflets to be useful and easy to understand. Pharmacists should
advocate reading the leaflet and promote it as a useful resource. The leaflet
should not replace the pharmacist’s obligation to provide verbal counseling.
KEY WORDS: medication information leaflets, patient information.
Ann Pharmacother
2007;41:777-82.
Published Online, 3 Apr 2007,
www.theannals.com
, DOI 10.1345/aph.1H686
by guest on October 11, 2013aop.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013aop.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013aop.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013aop.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013aop.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013aop.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Marie Schwartz College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences
of Long Island University. The survey was administered
by student pharmacists assigned to these pharmacies. Prior
to the start of the 5 week clerkship, students were apprised
of the purpose and conduct of the study and were explicitly
instructed to follow the wording and sequence of questions
as presented in the instrument. Each student was to inter-
view 10 patients who came to the pharmacy to drop off a
prescription or pick up a medication. Students were to in-
terview 1 patient at 1000 hours and another at 1300 hours.
If no patient was available for interview at these times, the
next available patient was to be interviewed. These specif-
ic times were selected to avoid bias in the students’ selec-
tion of patients.
Interviews were conducted using an instrument devel-
oped by the investigators. The instrument was pretested on
2 consumers to assess their understanding of the questions.
The pretest did not result in any changes to the instrument.
The instrument consisted of 13 questions regarding the fol-
lowing topics:
1. patient’s sex, year of birth, and highest level of edu-
cation;
2. whether a leaflet was provided with the drug that was
last dispensed to the patient at the last visit to this
pharmacy;
3. how often the leaflet provided for new and refill pre-
scriptions was read;
4. reasons for not always reading the leaflet;
5. parts of the leaflet that were read;
6. understandability and usefulness of the information
in the leaflet;
7. whether the information provided in the leaflet resulted
in a change in the way a medication was used; and
8. whether the leaflets provided with both new and re-
filled medications were kept.
Following each interview, the completed survey instru-
ment was faxed to the principal investigator (JPN), as was
a sample of a leaflet used at the pharmacy. Pharmacies that
did not provide leaflets with new prescriptions were ex-
cluded from serving as patient recruitment sites.
Results were tabulated using Microsoft Excel 2002 (Mi
-
crosoft Corp., Redmond, WA). Descriptive statistics were
used to analyze the data concerning the study’s objectives.
Since the study was not of the hypothesis testing design,
the notion of statistical power was not utilized. Additional-
ly, a post hoc analysis was conducted to determine whether
reading of leaflets provided with new drugs depended on a
patient’s age category (≥65 vs <65 y), sex, and/or level of
education category (college education vs no college educa-
tion). For each of the pairings, a 2
× 2 contingency table
utilizing
χ
2
tests was performed using the SAS software
version 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary
, NC). The survey was
granted an exempt status by the investigational review
board of Long Island University
.
Results
Thirty-nine pharmacies served as experiential sites be-
tween September 8 and October 11, 2005. Six of these
pharmacies did not provide leaflets with dispensed medi-
cations. Additionally, at 5 pharmacies, students inter-
viewed only 9 patients, at 1 pharmacy the student inter-
viewed only 8 patients, at 1 the student interviewed only 4
patients, and at another the student did not interview any
patients. Thus, a total of 307 patients were interviewed in
32 pharmacies, including 11 independent and 21 chain
pharmacies, representing 5 different chains. The leaflets
provided by the 32 pharmacies were produced by 5 differ-
ent sources. Patient characteristics are described in Table 1.
Two hundred seventy-six (89.9%) patients reported re-
ceiving a leaflet with their medication, 17 (5.5%) indicated
that they did not, and 14 (4.6%) reported that they did not
know or notice whether a leaflet was provided with their
last drug. All 307 patients responded to the question re-
garding the frequency with which the leaflets provided
with new medications were read, and 296 (96.4%) patients
answered this question for refilled drugs. The majority
(70.4%) of patients reported that they always or often read
the leaflets for new medications, as opposed to leaflets pro-
vided with refilled prescriptions (35.5%; Table 2). One
hundred ninety-eight patients provided reasons for not al-
ways reading the leaflet (Table 3). The 3 most commonly
reported reasons were that information was provided by
the physician (29.3%), the leaflet was too long (21.2%),
and that information was obtained directly from the phar-
macist (17.7%). Of the 267 patients who reported that they
read the leaflets always, often, or seldom, 260 (97.4%)
provided information on which sections were read; 148
(56.9%) reported reading the entire leaflet while 112
(43.1%) indicated that they read only portions. The most
commonly read sections were those on adverse effects and
778
n
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy
n
2007 May, Volume 41
www
.theannals.com
JP Nathan et al.
T
able 1.
Patient Characteristics
Characteristic
Sex, n (%)
a
female 179 (58.9)
male 124 (40.9)
Age, y
, mean (range)
a
49 (17–90)
Highest level of education, n (%)
b
grammar school 7 (2.3)
high school 90 (29.4)
vocational/technical school 6 (2.0)
some college 57 (18.6)
college graduate
104 (34.0)
master’s degree 28 (9.2)
doctoral degree (PhD) 1 (0.3)
professional degree (eg, MD, JD)
13 (4.3)
a
303 respondents.
b
306 respondents.
directions for use, reported by 68 (60.7%) and 24 (21.4%)
patients, respectively.
Patients who indicated that they read the leaflet at least
seldom (n = 267) for either new or refilled medications
were asked to rate its ease of understanding and usefulness.
Two hundred fifty-eight (96.6%) patients replied to the ques-
tion concerning the understandability and 257 (96.3%) an-
swered the question concerning usefulness (Table 4). The
majority of the subjects reported that the leaflet was very
easy to understand (56.2%) and very useful (63.8%).
Patients who reported reading the leaflets for either new
or refilled drugs at least seldom were asked whether they
ever changed the way they took their medications as a re-
sult of reading the leaflet. Of the 267 (100%) respondents
to this question, 191 (71.5%) indicated that they did not,
while 76 (28.5%) reported that they did. The most com-
monly reported changes were taking the drug at the proper
time with respect to meals, reported by 16 (21.1%) pa-
tients, and timing of administration (eg, morning vs
evening), reported by 7 (9.2%) subjects.
All patients, regardless of whether they read the leaflet,
were asked whether they kept the leaflets provided with
new and refilled drugs. Three hundred (97.7%) and 289
(94.1%) patients responded to these questions, respective-
ly. For new drugs, 128 (42.7%) patients indicated that they
kept the leaflet, 162 (54%) indicated that they did not, and
10 (3.3%) reported that they sometimes kept the leaflet.
For refilled drugs, 54 (18.7%) patients indicated that they
kept the leaflet, 223 (77.2%) did not, and 12 (4.2%) indi-
cated that they sometimes kept the leaflet.
A post hoc analysis was conducted to determine
whether a patient’s age, sex, and level of education were
associated with reading the leaflets provided with new pre-
scriptions. With respect to age, 43 (63%) of the 68 patients
who were 65 years or older stated that they always or often
read the leaflets compared with 169 (72%) of the 235 sub-
jects who were less than 65 years of age (p = 0.1691).
With respect to sex, 82 (66%) of the 124 males reported ei-
ther always or often reading the leaflets compared with
131 (73%) of the 179 females (p = 0.1863). In terms of
level of education, 60 (58%) of the 103 subjects who were
not college educated reported reading the leaflets for new
medications either always or often compared with 155
(76%) of the 203 who were college educated (p = 0.0011).
Discussion
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has long
maintained that providing useful written drug information
to patients is one way to ensure optimal medication use.
9
However, provision of such information must be coupled
with reading and comprehending the material. Our study
found that 70% of the interviewed patients reported that
they always or often read the leaflet for new drugs. These
results seem to concur with earlier data indicating that just
under 75% of the patients read the leaflets.
5
Contrary to the paucity of recent research data examin-
ing the actual percentage of patients who read leaflets in
the US, several foreign studies have been published. A
study conducted in the Sydney, Australia, metropolitan
Patients’ Use and Perception of Medication Information Leaflets
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy
n
2007 May, Volume 41
n
779
www
.theannals.com
Table 3. Reasons for Not Always Reading Leaflets
a
Reason n (%)
b
Information obtained from physician
58 (29.3)
Too long 42 (21.2)
Information obtained from pharmacist 35 (17.7)
Common knowledge 33 (16.7)
Print too small 31 (15.7)
Difficult to understand/language barrier 17 (8.6)
Information worrisome
14 (7.1)
Confusing 11 (5.6)
Information obtained from other sources 10 (5.1)
T
oo technical
9 (4.5)
Information not important 8 (4.0)
Not useful 7 (3.5)
Other
c
31 (15.7)
a
198 respondents.
b
61 (30.8%) patients reported multiple reasons.
c
Included reasons such as leaflet was obtained and read in past, too
busy, vision problems.
T
able 4.
Understandability and Usefulness of Leaflets
Category n (%)
Understandability
a
very easy 145 (56.2)
somewhat easy
89 (34.5)
somewhat difficult 22 (8.5)
very difficult 2 (0.8)
Usefulness
b
very
164 (63.8)
somewhat 90 (35.0)
not 3 (1.2)
a
258 respondents.
b
257 respondents.
Table 2. Frequency of Reading Leaflets
New
Drug,
a
Refilled
Frequency n (%) Drug,
b
n (%)
Always 151 (49.2) 64 (21.6)
Often 65 (21.2) 41 (13.9)
Seldom 49 (16.0) 78 (26.4)
Never 42 (13.7) 113 (38.2)
a
307 respondents.
b
296 respondents.
area examined the readership of printed consumer
medicine information (CMI) provided in 17 community
pharmacies and found that 64% of 153 patients reported
having read a CMI in the past.
8
Raynor et al.
7
conducted a
telephone interview of 215 patients 4–7 days after the pa-
tients received their medications from 3 community phar-
macies in the UK. At least some of the leaflet was read by
40% of the respondents, and 21% read it in its entirety. A
Belgian study that surveyed consumer readership of pack-
age inserts (PIs) found that 89% of the respondents report-
ed having read the PI, despite the fact that the information
was technical and intended for use by healthcare profes-
sionals.
6
The authors suggested that the high percentage of
readers may be due to the fact that patients in their survey
were reflecting their intent to read the PIs. Because of dif-
ferences in study methodologies and populations, a com-
parison between the studies described above and our study
is difficult.
It has been speculated that generally younger, wealthier,
and better educated individuals are more likely to be en-
gaged in activities that promote health.
10
As self education
about medications is an integral part of ensuring better
heath, our results concur with this assertion with respect to
level of education. However, for age, the data only direc-
tionally corroborated the historical interpretation. The lack
of a statistically significant difference for age can be at-
tributable to the lack of power to resolve the observed dif-
ferences. Similarly, no statistically significant difference
was found between the percentages of male versus female
subjects. This, too, may stem from an insuf
ficient sample
size or it may indeed reflect a lack of an effect of sex on
readership. Previous studies have reported conflicting re-
sults concer
ning the association between sex and reader-
ship of the leaflet.
10
The most commonly reported reason given for not al-
ways reading the leaflet was that infor
mation about the
drug is provided by the physician. Since drug regimens
can be complex, it is unlikely that physicians discuss all
pertinent information with the patient during a short office
visit or that patients understand and retain all of this infor-
mation. In fact, according to a 2004 FDA national survey
,
only 26% of consumers reported receiving infor
mation at
their physician’s office about the dose and frequency, pre-
cautions, and adverse effects of their prescribed medica-
tions.
1
1
Likewise, in a recently published observational
study that assessed the quality of physician communication
with patients about newly prescribed drugs, the investiga
-
tors reported that many aspects of the drug therapy were
not adequately discussed.
12
Given the suboptimal amount
of information provided by physicians, it is of concern that
some patients do not make use of the printed information
provided to them by phar
macists.
The second most commonly reported reason for not al
-
ways reading the leaflet was that it was too long, likely ex-
plaining why nearly half of the patients reported reading
only portions of the leaflet. This finding emphasizes the
importance of producing concise leaflets. The third most
commonly reported reason for not reading the leaflet was
that the information was obtained from the pharmacist.
Since the pharmacist has a professional obligation to coun-
sel and, depending on the state, may be legally required to
provide some degree of patient counseling for all patients,
one would expect counseling by the pharmacist to be the
primary reason provided by the patients for not reading the
leaflet. Notably, however, both the FDA survey
1
1
and a
study by Svarstad et al.
13
reported that a substantial number
of patients are not adequately counseled by pharmacists.
Although patient interviews were conducted only in
pharmacies where leaflets were provided, 17 patients indi-
cated that they did not receive a leaflet with their last medi-
cation. It is possible that these patients were not aware that
a leaflet was included or that it is omitted for refilled medi-
cations. At the 32 pharmacies that did provide leaflets,
more than 90% of the patients acknowledged receiving
them. For both new and refilled drugs, the majority of the
patients reported not keeping the leaflets. This may indi-
cate that patients do not view the leaflet as a reference
source, rather as instructional material that can be discard-
ed after initial use.
Greater than 90% of the patients who read the leaflet
rated it as being very easy or somewhat easy to under-
stand. Almost all (99%) found the information to be very
or somewhat useful. In fact, for both understandability and
usefulness, the majority of patients responded with the
highest ranking. In another study by Svarstad et al.,
3
con-
sumers gave the usefulness and ease of understanding of
leaflets a mean ± SD score of 3.6 ± 1.2 on a scale of 1
(poor) to 5 (good), indicating that they had a marginally fa-
vorable opinion of the leaflets in ter
ms of usefulness and
ease of understanding. However, a direct comparison be-
tween that study and ours is difficult because of the differ-
ent study designs and assessment tools used.
The results of this study have several implications for
pharmacists. Although the leaflet may be an important
source of information, a substantial number of patients do
not use it or use it only partially. This highlights the impor-
tance of adequate verbal counseling in ensuring proper use
of medications. It has been suggested that patients are
more likely to read the leaflet if it is handed to them per-
sonally since they will then perceive the leaflet to be a use-
ful tool.
7
Therefore, pharmacists should also ensure that
the leaflet is personally handed to the patient rather than
placed in or attached to the bag. Furthermore, it is impera-
tive that pharmacists emphasize the importance of reading
the leaflet. Data indicate that only 8% of patients are en-
couraged to do so.
13
Pharmacists should also review the
leaflet with patients and stress that it be kept as a reference
source.
780
n
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy
n
2007 May, Volume 41
www
.theannals.com
JP Nathan et al.
Limitations
This study relied on patients’ recall, possibly affecting
their responses. Also, since patients received many differ-
ent drugs, some may have perceived the leaflet to be im-
portant, while others did not. Our study examined patients’
attitudes toward non–manufacturer-provided leaflets; the
publishers of the leaflets varied. The leaflet content and/or
format may have contributed to whether the leaflet was
read and to its perceived usefulness and understandability.
However, effects of leaflet design and content on reader-
ship and patient perceptions were not an objective in this
study. This issue should be the subject of other research.
Our sample was limited to the New York City metro-
politan area; thus, our results may not reflect a national
trend. The study design attempted to reduce patient selec-
tion bias by establishing designated times for patient inter-
views. In doing so, the sample may have been skewed to-
ward certain patients (ie, those who frequent the pharmacy
in the morning or midday). While this possibility cannot
be ruled out, it is noteworthy that the demographics of the
study sample (age, educational background, sex) varied.
Conclusions
More than two-thirds of the patients interviewed in our
study reported either always or often reading the leaflet
provided with new medications. This percentage was sub-
stantially lower for leaflets provided with refills. Of patients
who read the leaflet, approximately half read it in its entirety,
and the majority found the information useful and easy to
understand. Pharmacists should emphasize the importance
of reading the leaflet and using it as a resource, notwith-
standing that it should not replace the pharmacist’s obliga-
tion to counsel. This study should provoke large-scale re-
search to examine actual readership of leaflets and to identi-
fy factors that af
fect leaflet readership in a real world setting.
Joseph P Nathan MS PharmD, Assistant Professor, Division of
Pharmacy Practice, Arnold & Marie Schwartz College of Pharmacy
and Health Sciences, Long Island University, Brooklyn, NY
Tina Zerilli PharmD, Drug Information Specialist, International Drug
Information Center; Adjunct Assistant Professor, Division of Phar-
macy Practice, Arnold & Marie Schwartz College of Pharmacy and
Health Sciences, Long Island University
Lorraine A Cicero MS PharmD, Associate Professor, Division of
Pharmacy Practice, Arnold & Marie Schwartz College of Pharmacy
and Health Sciences, Long Island University
Jack M Rosenberg PharmD PhD, Professor
, Division of Pharma
-
cy Practice, Arnold & Marie Schwartz College of Pharmacy and
Health Sciences, Long Island University
Reprints: Dr. Nathan, Division of Pharmacy Practice, Arnold & Marie
Schwartz College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, 75 De Kalb
Ave., Room HS 509, Brooklyn, NY 11201, fax 718/488-1254,
joseph.nathan@liu.edu
This study was presented as an abstract at the American Pharma
-
cists Association Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, March 16–19, 2007.
W
e thank Henry Chu MS and Ying Zhang MS for their assistance with statistical
analysis.
References
1. Public Law 104-180, Aug. 6, 1996. www.talkaboutrx.org/documents/
Public_Law_104-180.pdf (accessed 2006 Dec 18).
2. Svarstad BL, Bultman DC, Mount JK, Tabak ER. Evaluation of written
prescription information provided in community pharmacies: a study in
eight states. J Am Pharm Assoc 2003;43:383-93.
DOI 10.1331/154434503321831102
3. Svarstad BL, Mount JK, Tabak ER. Expert and consumer evaluation of
patient medication leaflets provided in U.S. pharmacies. J Am Pharm
Assoc 2005;45:443-51. DOI 10.1331/1544345054475586
4. Rollins BL, Sullivan DL. Evaluating consumer understanding of two pa-
tient instructions for use inserts provided by manufacturers. Drug Inf J
2
005;39:43-51.
5. Ley P. Communicating with patients: improving communication, satis-
faction and compliance. London: Croom Helm, 1988.
6. Vander Stichele RH, Van Haecht CH, Braem MD, Bogaert MG. Attitude
of the public toward technical package inserts for medication informa-
tion in Belgium. Ann Pharmacother 1991;25:1002-6.
7. Raynor DK, Knapp P. Do patients see, read and retain the new mandato-
ry medicines information leaflets? Pharm J 2000;264:268-70.
8. Koo MM, Krass I, Aslani P. Consumer use of consumer medicine infor-
mation. J Phar
m Pract Res 2005;35:94-8.
9. US Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Re-
search. Draft guidance: guidance of useful written medication information
(CMI). www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/6520dft.htm (accessed 2005 Nov 22).
10. Koo MM, Krass I, Aslani P. Factors influencing consumer use of written
drug information. Ann Pharmacother 2003;37:259-67.
DOI 10.1345/aph.1C328
11. US Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Re-
search. National surveys of prescription medicine information received
by consumers. www.fda.gov/cder/Offices/ods/y2ktable.htm#oral (ac-
cessed 2006 Dec 15).
12. Tarn DM, Heritage J, Paterniti DA, Hays RD, Kravitz RL, Wenger NS.
Physician communication when prescribing new medications. Arch In-
tern Med 2006;166:1855-62. DOI 10.1001/archinte.166.17.1855
13. Svarstad BL, Bultman DC, Mount JK. Patient counseling provided in
community pharmacies: effects of state regulation, pharmacist age, and
busyness. J Am Pharm Assoc 2004;44:22-29.
DOI 10.1331/154434504322713192
EXTRACTO
TRASFONDO: La ley federal requiere que por lo menos 95% de los pacientes
reciban información escrita con sus medicamentos nuevos. No existe
evidencia reciente sobre si los pacientes leen esta información.
OBJETIV
OS:
Evaluar si los pacientes leen folletos de infor
mación no
desarrollados por los fabricantes de medicamentos y determinar las
opiniones de los pacientes en cuanto a la utilidad y nivel de
entendimiento de estos folletos.
MÉTODOS: Se realizó una encuesta a pacientes en 32 farmacias de
comunidad en el área metropolitana de Nueva Cork. Las medidas de
resultados fueron el por ciento de los pacientes que leen los folletos
informativos que se les provee con medicamentos nuevos y de
repetición y el grado de entendimiento y utilidad de los folletos según la
percepción del paciente. Se utilizaron estadísticas descriptivas para
analizar los resultados.
RESULT ADOS: Un total de 307 pacientes fueron encuestados. Para los
folletos que se entregaron con medicamentos nuevos, 151 (49.2%), 65
(21.2%), 49 (16.0%), y 42 (13.7%) de los pacientes reportaron leer los
folletos siempre, frecuentemente, pocas veces, o nunca, respectivamente.
En el caso de los medicamentos de repetición, 64 (21.6%), 41 (13.9%),
78 (26.4%), y 113 (38.2%) de 296 pacientes reportaron leer los folletos
siempre, frecuentemente, pocas veces, o nunca, respectivamente. De 267
pacientes que reportaron leer los folletos que se entregan con
medicamentos nuevos o de repetición por lo menos pocas veces, 258
(96.6%) respondieron a la pregunta relacionada con el grado de
Patients’ Use and Perception of Medication Information Leaflets
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy
n
2007 May, Volume 41
n
781
www
.theannals.com
e
ntendimiento y 257 (96.3%) respondieron a la pregunta relacionada
con su utilidad. Ciento cuarenta y cinco (56.2%), 89 (34.5%), 22 (8.5%),
y 2 (0.8%) reportaron que el folleto era muy fácil, algo fácil, algo difíci,l
y muy difícil de entender, respectivamente.
CONCLUSIONES: Aproximadamente 2 terceras partes de los pacientes
reportaron leer los folletos que se le entregan con sus medicamentos
nuevos por lo menos casi siempre. La mayoría reportaron que los
f
olletos son útiles y fáciles de entender. Los farmacéuticos deben
promover que se lean los folletos ya que estos son una fuente de
información útil. Sin embargo, los folletos no deben sustituir la
orientación verbal del farmacéutico.
Homero A Monsanto
RESUME
HISTORIQUE: La loi fédérale requiert qu’au moins 95% des patients
reçoivent de l’information utile avec leur nouvelle médication. Des
données récentes à savoir si les patients lisent les pamphlets
d’information sont manquantes.
OBJECTIFS: Déterminer si les patients lisent les pamphlets qui ne sont pas
préparés par le manufacturier et évaluer l’opinion des patients
concernant leur compréhension et leur utilité.
METHODOLOGIE: Un sondage a été effectué auprès des patients de 32
cliniques communautaires dans la région métropolitaine de New York.
Les mesures principales de résultats étaient le pourcentage de patients
qui lisent les pamphlets qui leur sont remis avec les nouvelles
ordonnances de même que les renouvellements et leur perception de leur
n
iveau de compréhension et de l’utilité de ces pamphlets. Des
statistiques descriptives ont été utilisées pour analyser les résultats.
RÉSULT ATS: Un total de 307 patients ont complété le sondage. Pour les
pamphlets remis avec les nouvelles ordonnances, 151 (49.2%), 65
(21.2%), 49 (16.0%), et 42 (13.7%) ont rapporté de façon respective
avoir lu les pamphlets toujours, souvent, rarement ou jamais. Pour les
renouvellements d’ordonnances, 64 (21.6%), 41 (13.9%), 78 (26.4%), et
1
13 (38.2%) des 296 répondants ont rapporté avoir lu les pamphlets
toujours, souvent, rarement, ou jamais. Des 267 patients qui ont lu les
pamphlets remis avec les nouvelles ordonnances de même que les
renouvellements souvent, 258 (96.6%) ont répondu à la question
concernant leur compréhension et 257 (96.3%) ont répondu à la
question concernant leur utilité. Cent quarante-cinq (56.2%), 89
(34.5%), 22 (8.5%), et 2 (0.8%) ont rapporté de façon respective que les
pamphlets étaient très faciles, un peu faciles, un peu difficiles, et très
difficiles à comprendre et 164 (63.8%), 90 (35%), et 3 (1.2%) ont
rapporté de façon respective que les pamphlets étaient vraiment utiles,
un peu utiles, et inutiles.
CONCLUSIONS: Près des 2 tiers des patients ont rapporté avoir lu les
pamphlets remis avec les nouvelles ordonnances de médicaments au
moins souvent. La majorité des patients considèrent que les pamphlets
sont utiles et faciles à comprendre. Les pharmaciens devraient
préconiser la lecture des pamphlets et les promouvoir comme une
ressource utile. Les pamphlets ne devraient pas remplacer l’obligation
des pharmaciens de fournir des conseils verbaux.
Chantal Guévremont
782
n
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy
n
2007 May, Volume 41
www
.theannals.com
JP Nathan et al.
For Our Patients
Summaries to Enhance Patient Education
Articles published in The Annals are now being summarized in uncomplicated language to make medi-
cal information more accessible to patients. Written in an easy-to-follow format,
For Our Patients pro-
vides abstracts of articles to increase the patient’s understanding and of
fer healthcare providers a tool to
reinforce patient counseling.
For Our Patients is available online (www.ForOurPatients.info), with a complete listing and links to
all available summaries. Individual copies may be reproduced for educational purposes only for distri-
bution to patients.
