Back to Search Start Over

Pharmaceutical pictograms: User-centred redesign, selection and validation.

Authors :
Malhotra, Rahul
Malhotra, Rahul
Tan, Yi Wen
Suppiah, Sumithra Devi
Tay, Sarah Siew Cheng
Tan, Ngiap Chuan
Liu, Jianying
Koh, Gerald Choon-Huat
Chan, Alexandre
Vaillancourt, Régis
PROMISE Study Group
Malhotra, Rahul
Malhotra, Rahul
Tan, Yi Wen
Suppiah, Sumithra Devi
Tay, Sarah Siew Cheng
Tan, Ngiap Chuan
Liu, Jianying
Koh, Gerald Choon-Huat
Chan, Alexandre
Vaillancourt, Régis
PROMISE Study Group
Publication Year :
2023

Abstract

ObjectiveIn an earlier study, several tested International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) pictograms did not achieve validity among older adults in Singapore. In this study, for 27 unvalidated FIP pictograms, we (1) developed variants of each pictogram, (2) elicited the most-preferred variant, and (3) assessed the validity of the most-preferred variant among older Singaporeans.MethodsIn phase 1, up to three variants of the 27 pictograms were developed, based on older adults' feedback from a previous study. In phase 2, the most-preferred variant of 26 pictograms, which had two or three variants, was selected by 100 older participants. In phase 3, the 27 most-preferred variants (including the pictogram with only one variant) were assessed for validity - transparency and translucency - among 278 older participants (10 pictograms per participant). To evaluate transparency, participants were first asked: "If you see this picture on a medicine label, what do you think it means?" for each assigned pictogram. If they responded, they were asked, "How do you know?", and if not, they were told, "Tell me everything you see in this picture". Then, participants were shown their assigned pictograms again, one by one, and the pictogram's intended meaning was revealed to evaluate translucency. Pictograms were classified as valid (≥66% participants interpreted its intended meaning correctly [transparency criterion] and ≥85% participants rated its representativeness as ≥ 5 [translucency criterion]), partially valid (only transparency criterion fulfilled) or not valid.ResultsIn phase 1, 77 variants of the 27 pictograms were developed. In phase 2, a majority of the most-preferred variants were selected by >50% participants. In phase 3, 10 (37.0%) of the 27 pictograms tested were considered valid, and five (18.5%) were partially valid. A higher proportion of pictograms portraying dose and route of administration and precautions were valid or partially valid, versus those depicting in

Details

Database :
OAIster
Notes :
application/pdf
Publication Type :
Electronic Resource
Accession number :
edsoai.on1391580902
Document Type :
Electronic Resource