Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Design of Brand Names of Medicines Considering Subjects’ Preferences

  • Patient Engagement: Original Research
  • Published:
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Only recently, regulations on the names of medicines were developed. Regulations are mainly focused on avoiding the approval of medicine names that may be confusing to others. Furthermore, legal requirements do not include testing for human factors, such as potential users’ preferences.

Study aims

To develop a set of new brand names of medicines, to determine subjects’ preferred names, and to evaluate if the linguistic features of these names were related to subjects’ preferences.

Methods

Forty-six new names linguistically equivalent to the Portuguese brand names of medicines were developed. A panel of 13 postgraduates on linguistic studies were purposively enrolled. Participants were required to select and categorize the 6 most preferred names.

Results

From the 29 selected names: 62.1% ended in consonants, 65.5% contained at least one syllable of the CVC type, and 62.1% presented final stress. Considering these 3 linguistic features, there were statistically significant differences between the preferred and underpreferred names: χ2 = 4.572, P =.032; χ2 = 5.599, P =.018; and χ2 = 4.572; P =.032, respectively. Conclusions: Some linguistic features of the evaluated names were related to subjects’ preferences. Tests on subjects’ preferences about the names of medicines may provide additional safety features addressed by the present regulations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Corrigan J, Kohn LT, Donaldson MS, eds. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kenagy JW, Stein GC. Naming, labeling, and packaging of pharmaceuticals. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2001;58:2033–2041.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry contents of a complete submission for the evaluation of proprietary names, 2016. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm075068.pdf. Accessed August 13, 2016.

  4. INFARMED, IP. Deliberação no. 144/CD/2012—Norma orientadora para a aceitação de nomes de medicamentos [Resolution no. 144/CD/2012—Guiding norm for the acceptance of the medicines names]. http://www.infarmed.pt/portal/page/portal/INFARMED/MEDICAMENTOS_USO_HUMANO/AUTORIZACAO_DE_INTRODUCAO_NO_MERCADO/144_DAM_91.pdf. Accessed August 13, 2016.

  5. Handler SM, Nace DA, Studenski SA, Fridsma DB. Medication error reporting in long-term care. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2004;2:190–196.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Institute of Medicine. Preventing medication errors, 2007. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?%20record_id=11623. Accessed August 13, 2016.

  7. Ostini R, Roughead E, Kirkpatrick C, Monteith G, Tett S. Quality use of medicines—medication safety issues in naming; look alike, sound-alike medicine names. Int J Pharm Pract. 2012;20:349–357.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lambert B, Lin S, Tan H. Designing safe drug names. Drug Safety. 2005;28:495–512.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jennifer JA, Monica P, Malcolm CS. The sound of brands. J Market. 2010;74:97–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Usunier JC, Shaner J. Using linguistics for creating better international brand names. J Market Commun. 2002;8:211–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Shrum LJ, Lowrey TM, Luna D, Lerman D, Liu M. Testing phonetic symbolism effects on brand name preference for bilinguals across multiple languages. In Dahl DW, Johar GV, van Osselaer SMJ, eds. NA—Advances in Consumer Research. Vol. 38. Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.

  12. Meier B, Rey-Mermet A, Rothen N, Graf P. Recognition memory across the lifespan: the impact of word frequency and study-test interval on estimates of familiarity and recollection. Front Psychol. 2013;4:787.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Luna D, Carnevale M, Lerman Dawn. Does brand spelling influence memory? The case of auditorily presented brand names. J Consum Psychol. 2013;23:36–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cavaco A, Costa M, Pires C, Correia S, Vigário M. Exploring memory issues with the brand names of medicines. Int J Pharm Pract. 2016;(suppl 2): 4.

  15. European Medicines Agency. Guideline on the acceptability of names for human medicinal products processed through the center procedure. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Regulatory_and_procedural_guideline/2009/10/WC500004142.pdf. Published 2014. Accessed August 13, 2016.

  16. Citrome L. What’s in a name? Use of brand vs. generic drug names. Int J Clin Pract. 2016;70:3–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. NHS choices. Medicine information—brand names and generics. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Medicinesinfo/Pages/Brandnamesandgenerics.aspx. Published 2014. Accessed August 13, 2016.

  18. Pires C, Vigário M, Cavaco A. Brand names of Portuguese medicines: understanding the importance of their linguistic structure and regulatory issues. Cien Saude Colet. 2015;20:2569–2583.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lamber B, Bhamuik R, Zhao W, Bhaumik D. Detection and prediction limits for identifying highly confusable drug names from experimental data. J Biopharm Stat. 2016;26:365–3685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Schroeder SR, Salomon MM, Galanter WL, et al. Cognitive tests predict real-world errors: the relationship between drug name confusion rates in laboratory-based memory and perception tests and corresponding error rates in large pharmacy chains [published online May 18, 2016]. BMJ Qual Saf. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-005099.

  21. Food and Drug Administration. Strategies to reduce medication errors: working to improve medication safety. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143553.htm. Published 2015. Accessed June 3, 2017.

  22. Therapeutics Goods Administration. Best practice guideline on prescription medicine labeling. https://www.tga.gov.au/publication/best-practice-guideline-prescription-medicine-labelling. Published 2011. Accessed August 13, 2016.

  23. INFARMED, IP. Prontuário Nacional Terapêutico–10 [National Prescribing Guide–10]. Lisbon: Autoridade Nacional do Medicamento e Produtos de Saúde, I.P.; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mateus MH, Brito AM, Duarte I, et al. Gramática da Língua Portuguesa [Portuguese grammar], 6th ed. Lisbon: Caminho; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Andrews S. The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval: resolving neighborhood conflicts. Psychon Bull Ver. 1997;4:439–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lambert BL, Lin SJ, Tan H. Designing safe drug names. Drug Saf. 2005;28:495–512.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. New B, Ferrand L, Pallier C, Brysbaert M. Reexamining the world length effect in visual word recognition: new evidence from the English Lexicon Project. Psychon Bull Rev. 2006;13:45–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Vigário M, Frota S, Martins F. Para uma caracterização da distinção entre palavras prosódicas e clíticos com base em dados de frequência. In: XXVI Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, 2011. Textos Selecionados. Lisboa: Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, 589603. http://labfon.letras.ulisboa.pt/texts/Vigario_Frota_Martins_2011.pdf.

  29. Frota S, Vigário M, Martins F, Cruz M. FrePOP: frequency patterns of phonological objects in Portuguese (version 1.0), 2007 [Database].

  30. Cooper N, Cutler A, Wales R. Constraints of lexical stress on lexical access in English: evidence from native and non-native listeners. Lang Speech. 2002;45:207–228.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Loken B, Joiner C, Peck J. Category attitude measures: exemplars as inputs. J Consum Psychol. 2002;12:149–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ma Q, Wang C, Wang X. Two-stage categorization in brand extension evaluation: electrophysiological time course evidence. PLoS One. 2014;9:e114150.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Friedman M, Leclercq T. Brand discrimination: an implicit measure of the strength of mental brand representations. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0121373.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Priester JR, Nayakankuppam D, Fleming MA, Godek J. The A 2 SC 2 Model: the influence of attitudes and attitude strength on consideration and choice. J Consum Res. 2004;30:574–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Petty RE, Haugtvedt CP. Elaboration as a determinant of attitude strength: creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant, and predictive of behavior. In: Petty RE, Krosnick JA, eds. Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. New York: Psychology Press; 1995:93–138.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Martins F, Vigário M, Frota S. FreP: Frequency Patterns of phonological objects in Portuguese (version 2.0), 2016 [Software]. http://labfon.letras.ulisboa.pt/FreP/tools.html. Accessed August 13, 2016.

  37. Baddeley A. The magical number seven: still magic after all these years? Psychol Rev. 1994;101:353–356.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Vigário M, Martins F, Frota S. A ferramenta FreP e a frequência de tipos silábicos e de classes de segmentos no Português. [The tool FreP and the frequency of the syllabic types and classes of segments in Porguese]. Paper presented at: XXI National Meeting of the Portuguese Association of Linguistics, 2006.

  39. Mchugh ML. The chi-square test of independence. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2013;23:143–149.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. One World Nations Online. Most common languages. http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/most_spoken_languages.htm. Accessed June 6, 2017.

  41. Vigário M, Frota S, Martins F. A frequência que conta na aquisição da fonologia: types ou tokens. In: XXV Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, 2010. Textos selecionados. Porto: Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, 749767. http://labfon.letras.ulisboa.pt/texts/Vigario_Frota_Martins_2010.pdf.

  42. Taylor K, Holquist CA. More on confusion of drug names. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1946–1947.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Keller KL. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. J Mark. 1993;57:1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    Carla Maria Batista Ferreira Pires PhD & Afonso Cavaco PhD

  2. Carla Maria Batista Ferreira Pires, PhD, Research Institute for Medicines and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Lisbon, Av Prof Gama Pinto, 1649-003, Lisbon, Portugal

    Carla Maria Batista Ferreira Pires PhD

Authors
  1. Carla Maria Batista Ferreira Pires PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Afonso Cavaco PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carla Maria Batista Ferreira Pires PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pires, C.M.B.F., Cavaco, A. Design of Brand Names of Medicines Considering Subjects’ Preferences. Ther Innov Regul Sci 52, 230–235 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017719933

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017719933

Keywords

Search

Navigation