Readability and content of supplementary written drug information for patients used by Australian rheumatologists

被引:29
作者
Buchbinder, R
Hall, S
Grant, G
Mylvaganam, A
Patrick, MR
机构
[1] Cabrini Med Ctr, Malvern, Vic 3144, Australia
[2] Monash Univ, Dept Epidemiol & Prevent Med, Melbourne, Vic 3004, Australia
关键词
D O I
10.5694/j.1326-5377.2001.tb143438.x
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective: To determine the readability and content of supplementary written drug information currently being given to patients by rheumatologists in Australia. Design and participants: Blinded standardised review by two independent reviewers of supplementary written drug information routinely provided to patients by the 195 fully registered members of the Australian Rheumatology Association (ARA). Main outcome measures: FOG and SMOG readability scores to estimate readability; critical appraisal of content according to predetermined criteria. Results: 84 rheumatologists responded (43%), 45 of whom reported providing copies of written drug information to patients. Overall, 91 different documents were reviewed. Drugs most commonly considered were methotrexate (17), gold (16), sulfasalazine (10), penicillamine (10) and prednisolone (8). Level of agreement between reviewers for FOG and SMOG scores was fair to good (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.61 and 0.51, respectively). Mean (95% CI) FOG and SMOG scores were 12.6 (12.2-12.9) and 11 (10.7-11.2), respectively (implying that half of those in Year 12 [or aged 17 years] and Year 11 [or aged 16 years] according to the FOG and SMOG mean scores, respectively, will comprehend half of the text or more). For the same medication, there was a wide variation in the information provided, including which side effects were discussed. While 98% included some information about side effects, fewer considered dose (74%), drug interactions if applicable (70%), purpose of drug (67%), how and when to take the drug (62%), expected time to improvement (54%), what to do in the event of side effects (44%), the expected duration of therapy (18%) and what to do if a dose was missed (5%). Conclusions: The reading level required to understand supplementary written drug information used by Australian rheumatologists is much higher than the average reading ability of the Australian population (estimated at Year 8 level). The content of this information varies widely and often omits important information.
引用
收藏
页码:575 / 578
页数:4
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]   HOW READABLE ARE PRACTICE LEAFLETS [J].
ALBERT, T ;
CHADWICK, S .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1992, 305 (6864) :1266-1268
[2]   LETTERS TO PATIENTS - IMPROVING COMMUNICATION IN CANCER CARE [J].
DAMIAN, D ;
TATTERSALL, MHN .
LANCET, 1991, 338 (8772) :923-925
[3]  
DAVIS TC, 1990, J FAM PRACTICE, V31, P533
[4]   DOCTORS ORDERS - CONTROLLED TRIAL OF SUPPLEMENTARY, WRITTEN INFORMATION FOR PATIENTS [J].
ELLIS, DA ;
HOPKIN, JM ;
LEITCH, AG ;
CROFTON, J .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1979, 1 (6161) :456-456
[5]  
Gauld V A, 1981, J R Coll Gen Pract, V31, P553
[6]   PRESCRIPTION INFORMATION LEAFLETS - A PILOT-STUDY IN GENERAL-PRACTICE [J].
GEORGE, CF ;
WATERS, WE ;
NICHOLAS, JA .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1983, 287 (6400) :1193-1196
[7]   THE BENEFITS OF PRESCRIPTION INFORMATION LEAFLETS .1. [J].
GIBBS, S ;
WATERS, WE ;
GEORGE, CF .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 1989, 27 (06) :723-739
[8]   THE BENEFITS OF PRESCRIPTION INFORMATION LEAFLETS .2. [J].
GIBBS, S ;
WATERS, WE ;
GEORGE, CF .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 1989, 28 (03) :345-351
[9]  
GOYEN J, 1985, CURR AFFAIRS B, V61, P22
[10]  
Gunning R., 1952, TECHNIQUE CLEAR WRIT