Alternative package leaflets improve people's understanding of drug side effects-A randomized controlled exploratory survey
Current German and EU package leaflets (PLs) do not distinguish to what extent listed side effects are indeed side effects caused by drug intake or instead symptoms that occur regardless of drug use. We recently showed that most health professionals misinterpret the frequencies of listed side effect...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2018-09, Vol.13 (9), p.e0203800-e0203800 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | e0203800 |
---|---|
container_issue | 9 |
container_start_page | e0203800 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 13 |
creator | Mühlbauer, Viktoria Prinz, Roman Mühlhauser, Ingrid Wegwarth, Odette |
description | Current German and EU package leaflets (PLs) do not distinguish to what extent listed side effects are indeed side effects caused by drug intake or instead symptoms that occur regardless of drug use. We recently showed that most health professionals misinterpret the frequencies of listed side effects as solely caused by the drug. The present study investigated whether (1) these misinterpretations also prevail among laypeople and (2) alternative PLs reduce these misinterpretations.
In March 2017, 397 out of 400 laypeople approached completed an online survey. They were randomized to one of four PL formats: three alternative PLs (drug facts box with/without reading instruction, narrative format with numbers) and one standard PL. Each PL listed four side effects for a fictitious drug: two were presented as occurring more often, one as equally often, and one as less often with drug intake. The alternative formats (interventions) included information on frequencies with and without drug intake and included a statement on the causal relation. The standard PL (control) only included information on frequency ranges with drug intake. Questions were asked on general occurrence and causality of side effects.
Participants randomized to the standard PL were unable to answer questions on causality. For side effects occurring more often (equally; less often) with drug intake, only 1.9% to 2.8% (equally: 1.9%; less often: 1.9%) provided correct responses about the causal nature of side effects, compared to 55.0% to 81.9% (equally: 23.8% to 70.5%; less often: 21.0% to 43.2%) of participants who received alternative PLs. It remains unclear whether one alternative format is superior to the others.
In conclusion, information on the frequency of side effects in current package leaflets is misleading. Comparative presentation of frequencies for side effects with and without drug intake including statements on the causal relation significantly improves understanding. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0203800 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2103698594</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A557789051</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_62d2f74821da4f7b8a0ec9489d7cceb2</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A557789051</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-9588c9bd2cdee60610e9a7e9ed372507710054b192d3be6f42ea5eb6524aa5b33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk0tr3DAQx01padK036C0hkIfh91KsiXbl8IS-lgIBPq6Clkae7XVWo4kL9n2y1ebdcK65FB00GN-8x_NDJMkzzGa46zA79d2cJ0w8952MEcEZSVCD5JTXGVkxuL14dH5JHni_RohmpWMPU5OMkQwoZSeJn8WJkDUCXoLaS_kL9FCakA0BoJP9aZ3dm8A2xt449OhU-B8EJ3SXZvaJlVuaFOvFaTQNCCDny1SF812o3-DSqXtgrPGxCNc98Y6EazbpX5wW9g9TR41wnh4Nu5nyY9PH7-ff5ldXH5eni8uZpJVJMwqWpayqhWRCoAhhhFUooAKVFYQiooCx8TyGldEZTWwJicgKNSMklwIWmfZWfLyoBs_4PlYN88JRhmrSlrlkVgeCGXFmvdOb4TbcSs0v3mwruXCBS0NcEYUaYq8JFiJvCnqUiCQVV5WqpASahK1PozRhnoDSkKsgDAT0aml0yve2i1nOGNFwaLA21HA2asBfOAb7SUYIzqww82_KYokKSP66h_0_uxGqhUxAd01NsaVe1G-oLQoygpRHKn5PVRcCjY69hEaHd8nDu8mDvtew3VoxeA9X377-v_s5c8p-_qIXYEwYeWtGYK2nZ-C-QGUznrvoLkrMkZ8PyO31eD7GeHjjES3F8cNunO6HYrsL2OwDr0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2103698594</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Alternative package leaflets improve people's understanding of drug side effects-A randomized controlled exploratory survey</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Mühlbauer, Viktoria ; Prinz, Roman ; Mühlhauser, Ingrid ; Wegwarth, Odette</creator><contributor>Van Dijk, Liset</contributor><creatorcontrib>Mühlbauer, Viktoria ; Prinz, Roman ; Mühlhauser, Ingrid ; Wegwarth, Odette ; Van Dijk, Liset</creatorcontrib><description>Current German and EU package leaflets (PLs) do not distinguish to what extent listed side effects are indeed side effects caused by drug intake or instead symptoms that occur regardless of drug use. We recently showed that most health professionals misinterpret the frequencies of listed side effects as solely caused by the drug. The present study investigated whether (1) these misinterpretations also prevail among laypeople and (2) alternative PLs reduce these misinterpretations.
In March 2017, 397 out of 400 laypeople approached completed an online survey. They were randomized to one of four PL formats: three alternative PLs (drug facts box with/without reading instruction, narrative format with numbers) and one standard PL. Each PL listed four side effects for a fictitious drug: two were presented as occurring more often, one as equally often, and one as less often with drug intake. The alternative formats (interventions) included information on frequencies with and without drug intake and included a statement on the causal relation. The standard PL (control) only included information on frequency ranges with drug intake. Questions were asked on general occurrence and causality of side effects.
Participants randomized to the standard PL were unable to answer questions on causality. For side effects occurring more often (equally; less often) with drug intake, only 1.9% to 2.8% (equally: 1.9%; less often: 1.9%) provided correct responses about the causal nature of side effects, compared to 55.0% to 81.9% (equally: 23.8% to 70.5%; less often: 21.0% to 43.2%) of participants who received alternative PLs. It remains unclear whether one alternative format is superior to the others.
In conclusion, information on the frequency of side effects in current package leaflets is misleading. Comparative presentation of frequencies for side effects with and without drug intake including statements on the causal relation significantly improves understanding.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203800</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30212555</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Decision making ; Drug abuse ; Education ; Focus groups ; Format ; Frequency ranges ; Health aspects ; Health pamphlets ; Health sciences ; Health surveys ; Hyperglycemia ; Literacy ; Market entry ; Medical personnel ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act 2010-US ; Patients ; Prescription drugs ; Randomization ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Side effects ; Social Sciences ; Systematic review</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2018-09, Vol.13 (9), p.e0203800-e0203800</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2018 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2018 Mühlbauer et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2018 Mühlbauer et al 2018 Mühlbauer et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-9588c9bd2cdee60610e9a7e9ed372507710054b192d3be6f42ea5eb6524aa5b33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-9588c9bd2cdee60610e9a7e9ed372507710054b192d3be6f42ea5eb6524aa5b33</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-7358-4073</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6136776/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6136776/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793,79600,79601</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30212555$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Van Dijk, Liset</contributor><creatorcontrib>Mühlbauer, Viktoria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prinz, Roman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mühlhauser, Ingrid</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wegwarth, Odette</creatorcontrib><title>Alternative package leaflets improve people's understanding of drug side effects-A randomized controlled exploratory survey</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Current German and EU package leaflets (PLs) do not distinguish to what extent listed side effects are indeed side effects caused by drug intake or instead symptoms that occur regardless of drug use. We recently showed that most health professionals misinterpret the frequencies of listed side effects as solely caused by the drug. The present study investigated whether (1) these misinterpretations also prevail among laypeople and (2) alternative PLs reduce these misinterpretations.
In March 2017, 397 out of 400 laypeople approached completed an online survey. They were randomized to one of four PL formats: three alternative PLs (drug facts box with/without reading instruction, narrative format with numbers) and one standard PL. Each PL listed four side effects for a fictitious drug: two were presented as occurring more often, one as equally often, and one as less often with drug intake. The alternative formats (interventions) included information on frequencies with and without drug intake and included a statement on the causal relation. The standard PL (control) only included information on frequency ranges with drug intake. Questions were asked on general occurrence and causality of side effects.
Participants randomized to the standard PL were unable to answer questions on causality. For side effects occurring more often (equally; less often) with drug intake, only 1.9% to 2.8% (equally: 1.9%; less often: 1.9%) provided correct responses about the causal nature of side effects, compared to 55.0% to 81.9% (equally: 23.8% to 70.5%; less often: 21.0% to 43.2%) of participants who received alternative PLs. It remains unclear whether one alternative format is superior to the others.
In conclusion, information on the frequency of side effects in current package leaflets is misleading. Comparative presentation of frequencies for side effects with and without drug intake including statements on the causal relation significantly improves understanding.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Drug abuse</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Focus groups</subject><subject>Format</subject><subject>Frequency ranges</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Health pamphlets</subject><subject>Health sciences</subject><subject>Health surveys</subject><subject>Hyperglycemia</subject><subject>Literacy</subject><subject>Market entry</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act 2010-US</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Prescription drugs</subject><subject>Randomization</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Side effects</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk0tr3DAQx01padK036C0hkIfh91KsiXbl8IS-lgIBPq6Clkae7XVWo4kL9n2y1ebdcK65FB00GN-8x_NDJMkzzGa46zA79d2cJ0w8952MEcEZSVCD5JTXGVkxuL14dH5JHni_RohmpWMPU5OMkQwoZSeJn8WJkDUCXoLaS_kL9FCakA0BoJP9aZ3dm8A2xt449OhU-B8EJ3SXZvaJlVuaFOvFaTQNCCDny1SF812o3-DSqXtgrPGxCNc98Y6EazbpX5wW9g9TR41wnh4Nu5nyY9PH7-ff5ldXH5eni8uZpJVJMwqWpayqhWRCoAhhhFUooAKVFYQiooCx8TyGldEZTWwJicgKNSMklwIWmfZWfLyoBs_4PlYN88JRhmrSlrlkVgeCGXFmvdOb4TbcSs0v3mwruXCBS0NcEYUaYq8JFiJvCnqUiCQVV5WqpASahK1PozRhnoDSkKsgDAT0aml0yve2i1nOGNFwaLA21HA2asBfOAb7SUYIzqww82_KYokKSP66h_0_uxGqhUxAd01NsaVe1G-oLQoygpRHKn5PVRcCjY69hEaHd8nDu8mDvtew3VoxeA9X377-v_s5c8p-_qIXYEwYeWtGYK2nZ-C-QGUznrvoLkrMkZ8PyO31eD7GeHjjES3F8cNunO6HYrsL2OwDr0</recordid><startdate>20180913</startdate><enddate>20180913</enddate><creator>Mühlbauer, Viktoria</creator><creator>Prinz, Roman</creator><creator>Mühlhauser, Ingrid</creator><creator>Wegwarth, Odette</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7358-4073</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20180913</creationdate><title>Alternative package leaflets improve people's understanding of drug side effects-A randomized controlled exploratory survey</title><author>Mühlbauer, Viktoria ; Prinz, Roman ; Mühlhauser, Ingrid ; Wegwarth, Odette</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-9588c9bd2cdee60610e9a7e9ed372507710054b192d3be6f42ea5eb6524aa5b33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Drug abuse</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Focus groups</topic><topic>Format</topic><topic>Frequency ranges</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Health pamphlets</topic><topic>Health sciences</topic><topic>Health surveys</topic><topic>Hyperglycemia</topic><topic>Literacy</topic><topic>Market entry</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act 2010-US</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Prescription drugs</topic><topic>Randomization</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Side effects</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mühlbauer, Viktoria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prinz, Roman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mühlhauser, Ingrid</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wegwarth, Odette</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mühlbauer, Viktoria</au><au>Prinz, Roman</au><au>Mühlhauser, Ingrid</au><au>Wegwarth, Odette</au><au>Van Dijk, Liset</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Alternative package leaflets improve people's understanding of drug side effects-A randomized controlled exploratory survey</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2018-09-13</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>e0203800</spage><epage>e0203800</epage><pages>e0203800-e0203800</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Current German and EU package leaflets (PLs) do not distinguish to what extent listed side effects are indeed side effects caused by drug intake or instead symptoms that occur regardless of drug use. We recently showed that most health professionals misinterpret the frequencies of listed side effects as solely caused by the drug. The present study investigated whether (1) these misinterpretations also prevail among laypeople and (2) alternative PLs reduce these misinterpretations.
In March 2017, 397 out of 400 laypeople approached completed an online survey. They were randomized to one of four PL formats: three alternative PLs (drug facts box with/without reading instruction, narrative format with numbers) and one standard PL. Each PL listed four side effects for a fictitious drug: two were presented as occurring more often, one as equally often, and one as less often with drug intake. The alternative formats (interventions) included information on frequencies with and without drug intake and included a statement on the causal relation. The standard PL (control) only included information on frequency ranges with drug intake. Questions were asked on general occurrence and causality of side effects.
Participants randomized to the standard PL were unable to answer questions on causality. For side effects occurring more often (equally; less often) with drug intake, only 1.9% to 2.8% (equally: 1.9%; less often: 1.9%) provided correct responses about the causal nature of side effects, compared to 55.0% to 81.9% (equally: 23.8% to 70.5%; less often: 21.0% to 43.2%) of participants who received alternative PLs. It remains unclear whether one alternative format is superior to the others.
In conclusion, information on the frequency of side effects in current package leaflets is misleading. Comparative presentation of frequencies for side effects with and without drug intake including statements on the causal relation significantly improves understanding.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>30212555</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0203800</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7358-4073</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2018-09, Vol.13 (9), p.e0203800-e0203800 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2103698594 |
source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
subjects | Analysis Biology and Life Sciences Decision making Drug abuse Education Focus groups Format Frequency ranges Health aspects Health pamphlets Health sciences Health surveys Hyperglycemia Literacy Market entry Medical personnel Medicine and Health Sciences Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act 2010-US Patients Prescription drugs Randomization Research and Analysis Methods Side effects Social Sciences Systematic review |
title | Alternative package leaflets improve people's understanding of drug side effects-A randomized controlled exploratory survey |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T09%3A38%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Alternative%20package%20leaflets%20improve%20people's%20understanding%20of%20drug%20side%20effects-A%20randomized%20controlled%20exploratory%20survey&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=M%C3%BChlbauer,%20Viktoria&rft.date=2018-09-13&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=e0203800&rft.epage=e0203800&rft.pages=e0203800-e0203800&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0203800&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA557789051%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2103698594&rft_id=info:pmid/30212555&rft_galeid=A557789051&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_62d2f74821da4f7b8a0ec9489d7cceb2&rfr_iscdi=true |