Patient information leaflet in the era of digitalisation: a cross-sectional study on patients' attitudes and practices

BACKGROUND

Patient information leaflets (PILs) are documents that are standardized in nature and provide guidance for patients or caregivers on the safe and effective use of medicines. Previous evidence suggests that written information is linked to enhancing the amount of information remembered. Currently, patients have become more involved in digital searches for information. However, there is variability in the quality and reliability of information obtained from the web. According to Saudi Food and Drug Authority regulations, pharmaceutical manufacturers are required to supplement each pharmaceutical product entering the Saudi market with a digital leaflet in addition to a paper leaflet. This research aimed to evaluate patients' attitudes and practices towards PILs.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study design using an anonymous online self-administered questionnaire was adopted. The study took place in Saudi Arabia between October and December 2022. A convenience sampling strategy was used to recruit the study participants. The questionnaire was adapted from previous research that investigated patient attitudes and practices towards PILs.

RESULTS

A total of 463 participants agreed to take part in the study and completed the questionnaire. Physicians were the top utilized source for getting medicine information (92.7%), followed by pharmacists (84.7%), PILs (67.4%), searching the Internet (53.6%), and consulting family and friends (31.7%). About 78% of the participants reported often or always reading PILs for new drugs (78.2%), but this percentage was lower (45.4%) for repeat prescriptions. A positive perception towards PILs was observed among the study participants. While 54.6% of the participants indicated a preference for having both paper and digital information leaflets, 33.3% reported a preference for paper leaflets, and 12% indicated a preference for digital formats.

CONCLUSION

Although patients had positive perceptions towards PILs, physicians were the top-consulted source for medicine information. Pharmacists should educate patients about the importance of referring to PILs which can also be accessed electronically in the case of a preference for a digital format, as the quality and reliability of the information obtained from the web cannot be confirmed.

The Current State of Doctors' Communication Skills in Mainland China from the Perspective of Doctors' Self-evaluation and Patients' Evaluation: A Cross-Sectional Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess doctors' communication skills in mainland China using the SEGUE Framework.

METHODS

A survey on doctors' communication skills with doctors (n = 1361) and patients (n = 1757) from 14 provinces in eastern, central and western China was conducted.

RESULTS

The doctors' self-evaluation scores were higher than patients' evaluations (p < .001). The scores of female doctors were higher than males (p = .022). Both doctors' self-evaluations and patients' evaluations indicated that the scores of doctors in tertiary hospitals were higher than those in primary hospitals.

CONCLUSION

Doctors' communication skills don't match patients' needs. Female doctors are more empathetic and patient than male doctors and consequently have better communication skills. Doctors in tertiary hospitals have better communication skills because tertiary hospitals provide more training opportunities in communication skills and have better medical services and management.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This study confirms the applicability of the SEGUE Framework to doctors and patients in mainland China. The effectiveness of cultivating doctors' communication skills should be evaluated through feedback from the perspective of both doctors and patients. Medical institutes need to prioritize patients' needs and provide training in doctors' communication skills to address the discrepancy in the perceptions of doctors and patients.

Using an Information Package to Reduce Patients' Risk of Renal Damage: Protocol for a Randomized Feasibility Trial

Background

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a common cause of renal damage, especially when taken together with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-i) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) plus a diuretic — a combination known as the “triple whammy.” New Zealand patients are at high risk of the “triple whammy” because they can easily purchase NSAIDs without a prescription and in nonpharmacy retail settings (eg, the supermarket), there is no legal requirement to include patient information sheets with medication, and direct-to-consumer drug advertising is permitted. A patient information package has been developed for those at greatest risk of the “triple whammy,” consisting of a printable PDF and an interactive online learning activity. This information package aims to inform patients about their elevated risk of harm from NSAIDS and discourage use of NSAIDs. A randomized control trial was planned to assess the effect of the information package.

Objective

This study aims to pilot the trial procedures for recruiting patients and providing patient information online and to assess the acceptability of the patient information package.

Methods

A two-armed randomized feasibility trial will be undertaken in Northland, New Zealand. We will recruit 50 patients who are at least 18 years old from those who have signed up to receive email alerts through their general practice. Patients eligible for this study have been prescribed an ACE-i or ARB plus a diuretic in the past 3 months. They will be randomly allocated to 2 study arms. The intervention arm will receive access to an information package plus usual care; the control arm will receive usual care alone. Online surveys will be used to assess NSAID knowledge and NSAID use at baseline and after 2 weeks for both arms. The intervention arm will also evaluate the information package in an additional survey based on Normalization Process Theory (NPT) concepts. We will report the number and proportion of participants who are eligible and consent to participate in the trial. Response and drop-out rates will be reported for each trial arm. The numbers of patients who interact with the education package will be reported together with the patient evaluation of it.

Results

Funding has been obtained from the Health Research Council of New Zealand (HRC 18-031). The University of Otago Human Research Ethics Committee (H21/016) has approved this trial. Consultation has been undertaken with The Ngai Tahu research consultation committee. The trial commenced on April 12, 2021.

Conclusions

This feasibility trial will test the study processes prior to commencing a randomized controlled trial and will determine the acceptability of the patient information package. We anticipate this work will provide useful information for other researchers attempting similar work.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/29161