The Annals the journal of Pharmacy Technology
home help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


DICP, The Annals of Pharmacotherapy: Vol. 25, No. 9, pp. 1002-1006.
© 1991 Harvey Whitney Books Company.
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Articles Ahead of Print
Right arrow [Order Reprint]
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Vander Stichele, R.
Right arrow Articles by Bogaert, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Vander Stichele, R.
Right arrow Articles by Bogaert, M.


Research Articles

Attitude of the public toward technical package inserts for medication information in Belgium

RH Vander Stichele, CH Van Haecht, MD Braem, and MG Bogaert

We designed an 84-item questionnaire to determine the attitude of the Belgian public toward package inserts (PI) for medication information, written in technical language and intended for health professionals, within an original drug-dispensing distribution system. There were 398 respondents to this general public survey, based on a 0.05 percent selection from election registers of the districts of Gent and Liege. Eighty-nine percent of the respondents read the PI, focusing their attention principally on adverse effects (88 percent), dosage and dosing guidelines (85 percent), contraindications (82 percent), indications (79 percent), and medication shelf-life (76 percent). Compliance (83 percent), reassurance (57 percent), increased knowledge about the medication (50 percent), and decision to take the medicine (31 percent) were among the respondents' motives for reading the PI. Most respondents considered the PI information useful and complete, but difficult to remember and understand. Readers further criticized its legibility and poor graphic illustration. The PI was seen as a supplementary source of information, instrumental to the physician-pharmacist-patient relationship, without the power to overrule the physician's or pharmacist's instructions. Some respondents reported that the PI made them afraid to use the medication. Expectations for the ideal PI were contradictory and can only be met with a never-optimal compromise between comprehensiveness and conciseness.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
The Annals of PharmacotherapyHome page
J. P Nathan, T. Zerilli, L. A Cicero, and J. M Rosenberg
Patients' Use and Perception of Medication Information Leaflets
Ann. Pharmacother., May 1, 2007; 41(5): 777 - 782.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
The Annals of PharmacotherapyHome page
W. Shrank, J. Avorn, C. Rolon, and P. Shekelle
Effect of Content and Format of Prescription Drug Labels on Readability, Understanding, and Medication Use: A Systematic Review
Ann. Pharmacother., May 1, 2007; 41(5): 783 - 801.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
The Annals of PharmacotherapyHome page
M. M Koo, I. Krass, and P. Aslani
Patient Characteristics Influencing Evaluation of Written Medicine Information: Lessons for Patient Education
Ann. Pharmacother., September 1, 2005; 39(9): 1434 - 1440.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
The Annals of PharmacotherapyHome page
M. M Koo, I. Krass, and P. Aslani
Factors Influencing Consumer Use of Written Drug Information
Ann. Pharmacother., February 1, 2003; 37(2): 259 - 267.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




homecopy help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
Copyright © 1991 by Harvey Whitney Books Company.