 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||
at the time of the study, postgraduate researcher, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Head of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney
Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney
Reprints: Dr. Koo, National Prescribing Service, Level 7/418A Elizabeth St., Surry Hills, NSW 2010, Australia, mmskoo{at}hotmail.com
BACKGROUND: The Consumer Information Rating Form (CIRF) was developed as a direct method for measuring consumers' perceptions of the comprehensibility, utility, and design quality of written medicine information. The validity and reliability of the CIRF were evaluated in a small convenience consumer sample in the US. Its validity and reliability have yet to be established in a larger sample of consumers who are on chronic therapy in different settings.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity and reliability of the CIRF in Australian consumers on chronic therapy.
METHODS: Consumers read and subsequently evaluated a Consumer
Medicine Information (CMI) leaflet for one of their own medications, using an
adapted version of the CIRF. The construct validity and internal reliability
of the adapted version of the CIRF were tested using principal components
analysis (PCA) and Cronbach's 
, respectively.
RESULTS: The adapted CIRF was completed by 282 consumers (aged
19–90 y; median 66; interquartile range 53–75 y; 60.3% females).
Most respondents spoke primarily English at home (85.5%), had attained at
least secondary education (84%), and had adequate health literacy levels
(88.2%). Consumers rated CMI easy to read, understand, and navigate, but less
easy to remember and keep. Most also found it to be useful and to contain the
right amount of information. The design aspects also scored favorably,
although CMI did score relatively poorly in terms of its attractiveness and
tone (whether alarming or not). PCA yielded 3 factors (explaining 59.3% of the
total variance) identical to those in the original CIRF: comprehensibility,
utility, and design quality. All factors demonstrated good reliability
(Cronbach's 0.74, 0.92, and 0.75, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The CIRF appears to be a robust instrument for assessing consumers' perceptions of written medicine information. However, validity always needs to be reestablished when using a previously validated measure in a different population.
Key Words: consumer information rating form, written medicine information
Published Online, May 8, 2007. www.theannals.com, DOI 10.1345/aph.1K083
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
