Loading…

Improving Patient Understanding of Prescription Drug Label Instructions

Background Patient misunderstanding of instructions on prescription drug labels is common and a likely cause of medication error and less effective treatment. Objective To test whether the use of more explicit language to describe dose and frequency of use for prescribed drugs could improve comprehe...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of general internal medicine : JGIM 2009-01, Vol.24 (1), p.57-62
Main Authors: Davis, Terry C., Federman, Alex D., Bass, Pat F., Jackson, Robert H., Middlebrooks, Mark, Parker, Ruth M., Wolf, Michael S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Patient misunderstanding of instructions on prescription drug labels is common and a likely cause of medication error and less effective treatment. Objective To test whether the use of more explicit language to describe dose and frequency of use for prescribed drugs could improve comprehension, especially among patients with limited literacy. Design Cross-sectional study using in-person, structured interviews. Patients Three hundred and fifty-nine adults waiting for an appointment in two hospital-based primary care clinics and one federally qualified health center in Shreveport, Louisiana; Chicago, Illinois; and New York, New York, respectively. Measurement Correct understanding of each of ten label instructions as determined by a blinded panel review of patients’ verbatim responses. Results Patient understanding of prescription label instructions ranged from 53% for the least understood to 89% for the most commonly understood label. Patients were significantly more likely to understand instructions with explicit times periods (i.e., morning) or precise times of day compared to instructions stating times per day (i.e., twice) or hourly intervals (89%, 77%, 61%, and 53%, respectively, p 
ISSN:0884-8734
1525-1497
DOI:10.1007/s11606-008-0833-4