Design Science with a Focus on User-Centred Evaluation of Written Information



Written information about medicines is commonplace and has been used worldwide for decades to communicate risks and safe use advice for medicines. This chapter describes ways to optimise these important information materials using a design science approach—a structured process that starts with awareness of a problem, continues to development of a proposal/artefact up to its evaluation, and ends with a conclusion, including increased design science knowledge and/or awareness of unresolved or new issues relevant to communication. As illustrated here, creation and optimisation of information about medicines still has much room for improvement, to be enacted considering the totality of issues integral to the quality of information—in particular comprehensibility, usability, typography and layout. In this context, the systematic use of quality criteria is highly recommended. Evaluation is a key step of the design process; therefore, several evaluation methods are presented, with consideration of their advantages and limitations. Crucially, the evaluation should focus on improving the entire information material rather than simply attaining the success criteria of a couple of tested key messages. In addition, this chapter is meant to opens eyes and provide ideas for future perspectives and pathways for user-centred information materials.


  1. Aberson DHA, Bouwhuis DG (1997) Silent reading as determined by age and visual acuity. J Res Read 20:184–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aikin KJ, Swasy JL, Braman AC (2004) Patient and physician attitudes and behaviors associated with OTC promotion of prescription drugs, summary of FDA survey results. Accessed 28 Sept 2019
  3. Amstad T (1978) Wie verständlich sind unsere Zeitungen? (How comprehensible are our newspapers?). Universität Zürich, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  4. Andreasen MS, Nielsen HV, Schrøder SO, Stage J (2007) What happened to remote usability testing?: an empirical study of three methods. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems ACM DL.
  5. Aslani P, Hamrosi K, Feletto E, Raynor DKT, Knapp P, Huges J, et al. (2010) Investigating Consumer Medicine Information (I-CMI) Project: Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing; The Pharmacy Guild of Australia. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  6. Australian Government (1990) Therapeutic goods regulations. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  7. Australian Government, Department of Health, Therapeutics Goods Administration (2019) Consumer information (CMI). Accessed 28 Sept 2019
  8. Austrian Federal Office for Safety in Health Care (2013) Wie sollen medizinische Fachbegriffe für die Gebrauchsinformation übersetzt werden?—Empfohlene Übersetzungen. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  9. Azodi K, Himstedt S, Hinrichs A, Krüger M, Schrader S, Schulz M (2002) Testing of the readability of package leaflets as an initial step under the pharmaceutical care initiative towards increasing the safety of medicinal products. Pharm Ind 64:1119–1125Google Scholar
  10. Azodi K, Himstedt S, Hinrichs A, Krüger M, Schrader S, Schulz M (2003) Test auf Lesbarkeit läuft in Apotheken. Pharm Ztg 148:3296–3298Google Scholar
  11. Bahri P, Castillon Melero M (2018) Listen to the public and fulfil their information interests: translating vaccine communication research findings into guidance for regulators. Br J Clin Pharmacol 84:1696–1705PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bauer T, Erdogan B (2012) Communication—different types of communication and channels. In: Bauer T, Erdogan B (eds) An introduction to organizational behavior (v.1.0). Creative commons, pp 347–366. Accessed 27 Sept 2019Google Scholar
  13. Beime B (2010) BfArM im Dialog—Aktionsplan AMTS—Arzneimitteltherapiesicherheit durch bessere Lesbarkeit von Packungsbeilagen? Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  14. Beime B, Menges K (2012) Does the requirement of readability testing improve package leaflets? Evaluation of the 100 most frequently prescribed drugs in Germany marketed before 2005 and first time in 2007 or after. Pharmaceut Reg Affairs 1:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bell RC, Sullivan JL (1981) Student preferences in typography. J Programmed Learning Educ Technology 18:57–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bernardini C, Ambrogi V, Perioli L, Tiralti MC, Fardella G (2000) Comprehensibility of the package leaflets of all medicinal products for human use: a questionnaire survey about the use of symbols and pictograms. Pharmacol Res 41:679–688PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bernardini C, Ambrogi V, Fardella G, Perioli L, Grandolini G (2001) How to improve the readability of the patient package leaflet: a survey on the use of colour, print size and layout. Pharmacol Res 5:437–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Berry DC, Knapp P, Raynor DK (2002) Provision of information about drug side-effects to patients. Lancet 359:853–854PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Beuth Verlag (2008) ISO2471:2008–12 paper and board—determination of opacity (paper backing)—diffuse reflectance method. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  20. Bock J (1998) Bestimmung des Stichprobenumfangs. R. Oldenbourg Verlag, München, WienGoogle Scholar
  21. Breland K, Breland MK (1944) Legibility of newspaper headlines printed in capitals and in lower case. J Appl Psychol 28:117–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bringhurst R (2005) The elements of typographic style, 4.0 ed. Hartley & Marks, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  23. Brunetti L, Santell JP, Hicks RW (2007) The impact of abbreviations on patient safety. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 33:576–583PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Burtt HE, Basch C (1923) Legibility of bodoni, baskerville roman and Cheltenham type faces. J Appl Psychol 7:237–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Calamusa A, Di Marzio A, Cristofani R, Arrighetti P, Santaniello V, Alfani S et al (2012) Factors that influence Italian consumers’ understanding of over-the-counter medicines and risk perception. Patient Educ Counsel. 87:395–401Google Scholar
  26. Caldeira TR, Neves ERZ, Perini E (2008) Historical evolution of package inserts in Brazil. Cad Saúde Pública 24:737–743PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Claxton AJ, Cramer J, Pierce C (2001) A systematic review of the associations between dose regimens and medication compliance. Clin Ther 23:1296–1310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Connolly GK (1998) Legibility and readability of small print: effects of font, observer age and spatial vision. Thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, CalgaryGoogle Scholar
  29. Co-ordination Group for Mutual Recognition and Decentralised Procedures—Human (CMD(h)) (2016). Position paper on user testing of package leaflet—consultation with target patient groups (Compliance with article 59(3) of Council Directive 2001/83/EC); Doc. Ref: CMDh/234/2011, Rev. 01. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  30. Dawoodi I, Bhosale UA (2016) Evaluation of knowledge and awareness of patients about prescribed drugs and their package inserts: a cross-sectional study. Asian J Pharm 10:S96–S99Google Scholar
  31. Dayani MH (2000) A criteria for assessing the Persian texts’ readability. J Soc Sci Hum 10:35–48Google Scholar
  32. Deutsches Institut für Normung (German Institute for Standardisation) (2011) Packaging—ease of opening—criteria and test methods for evaluating consumer packaging; German version DIN CEN/TS 15945:2011. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  33. Deutsches Institut für Normung (German Institute for Standardisation) (2013) DIN 1450: lettering—legibility. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  34. Dickinson RJ (2014) The inclusion of a headline section and information about the benefits of medicines in written medicines information. The University of Leeds, School of Healthcare, LeedsGoogle Scholar
  35. Dickinson D, Raynor DK, Duman M (2001) Patient information leaflets for medicines: using consumer testing to determine the most effective design. Patient Educ Counsel 43:147–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Dickinson RJ, Raynor DK, Knapp P, MacDonald J (2016) Do patients use a headline section in a leaflet to find key information about their medicines? Findings from a user-test study. Ther Innov Regul Sci 50:581–591PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. DiSantostefano RL, Beck M, Yeakey AM, Raphiou I, Stempel DA (2014) Patient comprehension of medication guides for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease medications. Ther Innov Regul Sci 48:574–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Dolk S, Knapp P, Maat HP, Lentz L, Raynor T (2011) Headline section in patient information leaflets: does it improve reading performance and perception? Information Design Journal 19:46–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Dowse R, Ehlers M (2004) Pictograms for conveying medicine instructions: comprehension in various south African language groups. S Afr J Sci 100:687–693Google Scholar
  40. East African Community Secretariat (2014) The Compendium of medicine evaluation and registration for medicine regulation harmonization in the East African Community—Document no: EAC/TF-MED/MER/FD/COM/N1R0. Accessed 29 Sept 2019
  41. Ekstrom I (1993) Printed materials for an aging population: design considerations. J Biocommun 20:25–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Ellliot AJ, Covington MV (2001) Approach and avoidance motivation. Educ Psychol Rev 13:73–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Eurasian Economic Commission Council (2016) On the rules of marketing authorization and assessment of medicinal products for medical use, Resolution No. 78. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  44. European Commission (1998) A guideline on the readability of the label and package leaflet of medicinal products for human use, Brussels. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  45. European Commission (2009) Guideline on the readability of the labelling and package leaflet of medicinal products for human use. Brussels, Rev. 1. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  46. European Commission (2017) Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council in accordance with Article 59(4) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. Accessed 28 Sept 2019
  47. European Medicines Agency (2007) Minutes of the fourth meeting of the EMEA human scientific committees’ working party with patients’ and consumers’ organisations (PCWP). Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  48. European Medicines Agency (2017) EMA action plan related to the European Commission’s recommendations on product information. Accessed 12 Oct 2019
  49. European Medicines Agency (2019) Product information templates: centralised procedures—version 10.1; MR/DC/Referral procedures—version 4.1, 2020. Accessed 6 Mar 2020
  50. European Medicines Agency, Heads of Medicines Agencies (2019) Guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices (EU-GVP). EMA, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  51. European Medicines Agency, Heads of Medicines Agencies, European Commission (2019a) Electronic product information for human medicines in the EU—draft key principles; A joint EMA-HMA-EC collaboration; EMA/849614/2018. Accessed 28 Sept 2019
  52. European Medicines Agency, Heads of Medicines Agencies, European Commission. (2019b) Electronic product information for medicines in the EU—report from an EMA-HMA-EC workshop held on 28 November 2018. Accessed 28 Sept 2019
  53. European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (2020) The European Union electronic Register of Post-Authorisation Studies (EU PAS register). Accessed 28 Sept 2019
  54. Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (2013) FAQ Packungsbeilagenprüfung—Welche Methoden sind vom BfArM für die Durchführung einer solchen Untersuchung akzeptiert? Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  55. Feinstein Institute for Medical Research (2013) Human research protection program guidance document—glossary of lay terminology. Accessed 29 Dec 2018
  56. Feldmüller T, Wesch M, Kutscha M, Die EU (2011) Readability guideline: Auswirkungen auf die Packungsbeilage. Pharm Ind 73:441–446Google Scholar
  57. Felsch C (2004) Frequentielle Lesbarkeitsanalyse—Studienarbeit (frequential readability analysis—student research project). Grin Verlag für akademische Texte, JenaGoogle Scholar
  58. Flesch R (1948) A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 32:221–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Foster CS (2013) An analysis of volunteer age and level of education on performance in ‘Readability’ testing for patient information leaflet. J Health Med Inform 4:2–4Google Scholar
  60. Franck MCJ, Foulon V, Van Vaerenbergh L (2011) ABOP, the automatic patient information leaflet optimizer: evaluation of a tool in development. Patient Educ Counsel 83:411–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Friedmann CP, Romeo D, Hinton SS (1997) Healthcare decisions and product labeling: results of a consumer comprehension study of prototype labeling for proposed over-the-counter cholestyramine. Am J Med 102:50–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Fuchs J (2005) Die Packungsbeilagen als ein Mittel zur gezielten information und Handlungsanleitung für Patienten—Entwicklung und Testung eines Instrumentes zur Beurteilung und Optimierung der Packungsbeilagen von Arzneimitteln [package inserts as medium to convey targeted information and directions for use to patients: developing and testing a tool to rate and optimise pharmaceutical product package inserts. Dissertation, Humboldt University, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  63. Fuchs J (2010a) The way forward in package insert user tests from a CROs perspective. Drug Inf J 44:119–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Fuchs J (2010b) Patient information via package inserts within the European Union—results of the PAINT3 study. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  65. Fuchs J, Finke A (2008) Hippius M. Wie genau lassen sich Tabletten teilen? (How exact can tablets be divided?). Arzneimittel-Therapie-Kritik & Medizin und Umwelt 48:147–159Google Scholar
  66. Fuchs J, Hippius M (2007) Inappropriate dosage instructions in package leaflets. Patient Educ Counsel. 67:157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Fuchs J, Kutscha M (2015) How best to assess paper quality for package leaflets – weight or opacity? Pharm Ind 77:1380–1383Google Scholar
  68. Fuchs J, Hippius M, Schaefer M (2005) A survey of package inserts use by patients. Hosp Pharm Eur 21:29–31Google Scholar
  69. Fuchs J, Hippius M, Schaefer M (2006) Analysis of German package inserts. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 44:8–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Fuchs J, Banow S, Görbert N, Hippius M (2007) The importance of package insert information in the European Union. Pharm Ind 69:165–172Google Scholar
  71. Fuchs J, Heyer T, Langenhan D, Hippius M (2010a) New font size requirements in package inserts of medicines. Pharm Ind 72:2032–2036Google Scholar
  72. Fuchs J, Finke A, Hippius M (2010b) Ambivalent dosage instructions for children. Pharm Ind 72:606–610Google Scholar
  73. Fuchs J, Werner S, Scheunpflug C, Götze EA, Elsterman K, Scheffel K et al (2010c) Excessive medical information increase in package inserts. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 48:781–790PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Fuchs J, Scheunpflug C, Götze EA (2012) The influence of the European Union’s template on the use of package inserts compared with a shorter model template. PharmInd 74:126–136Google Scholar
  75. Fuchs J, Götze EA, Voigt C (2016) Landscape versus portrait format in package leaflets—which format is more suitable according to readability test results from the PAINT3 study? Pharm Ind 78:1174–1184Google Scholar
  76. Fuchs J, Kraft S, Vettermann A, Reiche M (2017) Typographic changes in package leaflets of the European Union based on the example of German versions between 2005 and 2015. Ther Innov Regul Sci 51:431–438PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Fuchs J, Götze EA, Voigt C (2018) Should package leaflets be coloured in the future? Pharm Ind 80:1428–1435Google Scholar
  78. Fuchs J, Scheunpflug C, Götze EA PAINT-consult medical term, abbreviation and symbol test results. Unpublished informationGoogle Scholar
  79. Fujita PL, Machado CJS, de Olivera Teixeira M (2014) The medicine package leaflet and the regulation of its configurations in terms of form and content in Brazil. Saúde e Sociedade 23:166–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Fullmann K, Blackburn DF, Fenton ME, Mansell H (2017) Readability and suitability of COPD consumer information. Can Respir J.
  81. Garner M, Zhenye N, Francis J (2011) A framework for the evaluation of patient information leaflets. Health Expect 15:283–294PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Gregg DG, Kulkarni UR, Vinze AS (2001) Understanding the philosphical underpinnings of software engineering research in information systems. Inform Syst Front 3:169–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Gregory M, Poulten EC (1970) Even versus uneven right-hand margins and the rate of comprehension in reading. Ergonomics 13:427–434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Gunning R (1952) The technique of clear writing. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  85. Halliday MAK, Webster J (2006) On language and linguistics, 3rd edn. Continuum International Publishing Group, LondonGoogle Scholar
  86. Hamrosi KK, Raynor DK, Aslani P (2014) Enhancing provision of written medicine information in Australia: pharmacist, general practitioner and consumer perceptions of the barriers and facilitators. BMC Health Serv Res 14:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Hartley J, Johnson M (2000) Portrait or landscape? Typographical layouts for patient information leaflets. Visible Lang 34:296–309Google Scholar
  88. Hartley J, Kenely J, Owen G, Truemann M (1980) The effect of headings on children’s recall from prose text. Br J Educ Psychol 50:304–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Haug O, Box G, Kohn M, Streiftau N, Haseloff A (2011) Prüfung der Verständlichkeit und Lesbarkeit von Arzneimittelinformationen anhand aktuell am Markt befindlicher Packungsbeilagen. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  90. Health Products Regulatory Authority (2018) Guide to labels and leaflets of human medicines. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  91. Hemphill MA (1996) Note an adults’ color-emotion associations. J Genet Psychol 157:275–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. Manag Inf Syst Q 28:75–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Hohgräwe U (1988) Verständlichkeit von Instruktionstexten und das Informationsverhalten von Arzneimittel-Verbrauchern. Wuppertal: Fachbereich 1—Gesellschaftswissenschaften der Bergischen Universität—Gesamthochschule WuppertalGoogle Scholar
  94. Holmes G (1931) The relative legibility of black print and white print. J Appl Psychol 15:248–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Humphris GM, Field EA (2003) The immediate effect on knowledge, attitudes and intentions in primary care attenders of a patient information leaflet: a randomized control trial replication and extension. Br Dent J 194:683–688PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. IGT Testing Systems (2006) IGT Information leaflet W43, printing through (85 Shore A), IGT AIC2-5T2000, Global Standard Tester 2/3/3H. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  97. Institute for Safe Medication Practices (2015) ISMP’s list of error-prone abbreviations, symbols and dose designations. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  98. Institutsrat des Schweizerischen Heilmittelinstituts (2019). Verordnung des Schweizerischen Heilmittelinstituts über die Anforderungen an die Zulassung von Arzneimitteln (Arzneimittel-Zulassungsverordnung, AMZV), 9 Nov 2001 (last update 1 Jan 2019). Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  99. Jarernsiripornkul N, Phueanpinit P, Pongwecharak J, Krska J (2019) Development and evaluation of user-tested Thai patient information leaflets for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: effect on patients’ knowledge. PLoS One 14:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Kincaid JP, Fishburn RP, Rogers RL, Chissom BS (1975) Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count, and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. University of Central Florida, Institute for Simulation and Training. Assessed 18 Oct 2019
  101. Knapp P, Raynor DK, Berry DC (2004) Comparison of two methods of presenting risk information to patients about the side effects of medicines. BMJ 13:176–180Google Scholar
  102. Knapp P, Raynor DK, Woolf L, Gardner P, McMillan B (2009) Evaluating the effects on side-effect risk estimates by people when given single- versus double-ended frequency expressions. Int J Pharm Pract 17(2):B32–B33Google Scholar
  103. Koo M, Krass I, Aslani P (2005) Consumer use of consumer medicine information. J Pharm Pract Res 35:94–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Kopyto N, Braun-Münker M, Ecker F (2018) Importance of opening advices with novel packaging concepts. Pharm Ind 80:1123–1127Google Scholar
  105. Lebanese American University (2011) Medical to lay terminology. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  106. Lerner EB, Jehle DVK, Janicke DM, Moscati RM (2000) Medical communication: do our patients understand? Am J Emerg Med 18:764–766PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Lewis C, Rieman, J (1994) Task-centered user interface design: a practical introduction. Accessed 18 Oct 2019
  108. Mansoor L, Dowse R (2007) Written medicines information for south African HIV/AIDS patients: does it enhance understanding of co-trimoxazole therapy? Health Educ Res 22:37–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. March ST, Smith GF (1995) Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis Support Syst 15:251–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Martinet A, Palmer E (1967) Elements of general linguistics, 3nd edn. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  111. Mazzullo JM, Lasagna L, Girner PF (1974) Variations in interpretation of prescription instructions—the need for improved prescribing habits. JAMA 227:929–931PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. McAvoy DR, Pitts PJ, Holdsworth SM, Elsner MW, Dowsett SA, Rotelli MD et al (2007) A new model for communicating risk information in direct-to-consumer print advertisements. Drug Inf J 41:111–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. McLaughlin HG (1969) SMOG grading: a new readability formula. J Read 12:639–646Google Scholar
  114. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (2005) Always read the leaflet—getting the best information with every medicine. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  115. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (2008) Questions and answers on PLPI PIL user testing. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  116. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (2012) Best practised guidance on patient information leaflets. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  117. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (2017) Human factors and usability engineering—Guidance for medical devices including drug-device combination products, version 1.0. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  118. Morrow D, von Leirer O, Altieri P, Tanke E (1991) Elder’s schema for taking medication: implications for instruction design. J Gerontol 46:378–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Morrow DG, von Leirer O, Andrassy JM, Decker Tanke E, Stine-Morrow EAL (1996) Medical instruction design: younger and older adult schemas for taking medication. Hum Factors 38:556–573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Moudgil T, Arora R, Kaur K (2016) Prevalance of color blindness in children. Int J Med Dental Sci 5:1252–1258Google Scholar
  121. National Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices of Romania (2010) HOTÃRÂREA Nr. 6/23.03.2010 referitoare la aprobarea Ghidului privind modalitatea de efectuare a consultãrii cu grupurile þintã de pacienþi în vederea elaborãrii prospectului. Accessed 16 Oct 2019
  122. National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (2002) Adult literacy in America, a first look at the findings of the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS). Accessed 18 Oct 2019
  123. Nielsen J (1994) Usability inspection methods. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Paech T, Ihnken B, Menges K, Dobmeyer T (2011) Readability of package leaflets according to age and level of education. Pharm Ind 73:1387–1398Google Scholar
  125. Pander Maat H, Lentz L (2010) Improving the usability of patient information leaflets. Patient Educ Counsel. 80:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Pander Maat H, Lentz L, Raynor D (2015) How to test mandatory text templates: the European patient information leaflet. PLoS One.
  127. Papay J, Fritz D, Contu T, Ellis M, Debussey S (2010) Assessment of a simplified format of written patient prescription drug information. Drug Inf J 44:375–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Patel VL, Branch T, Arocha JF (2002) Errors in interpreting quantities as procedures: the case of pharmaceutical labels. Int J Med Inform 65:193–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Paterson DG, Tinker MA (1929) Studies of typographical factors influencing speed of reading; II. Size of type. J Appl Psychol 13:120–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Paterson DG, Tinker MA (1931) Studies of typographical factors influencing speed of reading, VI. Black type versus white type. J Appl Psychol 13:241–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Paterson DG, Tinker MA (1940) How to make type readable. Harper, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  132. Paterson DG, Tinker MA (1942) Influence of size of type on eye movements. J Appl Psychol 26:227–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Perry DK (1952) Speed of accuracy of reading Arabic and Roman numerals. J Appl Psychol 36:346–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Pfeffers K, Tuunanen T, Rothenberger M, Chatterjee S (2008) A design science research methodology for information systems research. J Manag Inf Syst 24:45–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Pickford RW (1963) Natural selection and colour blindness. Eugen Rev 55:97–101PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  136. Pinero-Lopez MA, Figueiredo-Escriba C, Modamio P, Lastra CF, Marino EL (2019) Readability assessment of package leaflets of biosimilars. BMJopen 9:e024837. Scholar
  137. Pires C, Vigário M, Cavaco A (2015a) Graphical content of medicinal package inserts: an exploratory study to evaluate potential legibility issues. Health Inf Libr J 33:121–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Pires C, Vigário M, Martins F, Cavaco A (2015b) Abbreviations and symbols in a large sample of medicinal package leaflets: automatic detection and comprehension assessment. Procedia Computer Sci 64:683–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Pires C, Vigário M, Cavaco A (2015c) Package leaflets of the most consumed medicines in Portugal: safety and regulatory compliance issues. A descriptive study. Sao Paulo Med J 133:91–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Pires C, Martins F, Cavaco A, Vigário M (2017a) Automatic quantification of abbreviations in medicine package leaflets and their comprehension assessment. Int J E-Health Medical Commun 8:47–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Pires C, Cavaco A, Vigário M (2017b) How sociodemographic features impact subjects’ opinion on packages leaflets of medicines? Australasian Medical J 10:774–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. PizzolI TSD, Moraes CG, Arrais PSD, Bertoldi AD, Ramos LR, Farias MR et al (2019) Medicine package inserts from the users’ perspective: are they read and understood? Rev Bras Epidemiol 22:1–12Google Scholar
  143. Poulton EC (1965) Letter differentiation and rate of comprehension in reading. J Appl Psychol 49:358–362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Poulton EC (1967a) Skimming (scanning) news items printed in 8-point and 9-point letters. Ergonomics 10:713–716PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Poulton EC (1967b) Searching for newspaper headlines printed in capitals or lower-case letters. J Appl Psychol 51:417–425PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Poulton EC (1969) Skimming lists of food ingredients printed in different sizes. J Appl Psychol 53:55–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Poulton EC, Brown CH (1968) Rate of comprehension of an existing teleprinter output and of possible alternatives. J Appl Psychol 52:16–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Purao S (2002) Design research in the technology of information systems: truth or dare. Working paper. GSU Department of CIS, Georgia State University, Atlanta. Accessed 28 Sept 2019
  149. Ramadas D, Chakrabordy A, Swaroop HS, Syed F, Praveen KV (2013) Spinivas BN. A study of package inserts in southern India. J Clin Diagn Res 7:2475–2477Google Scholar
  150. Ramanayake BS, Liyanagoda NE, Dahanayake PK, Hemachandra MAD (2014) Do patients understand medical communication? Patients’ knowledge on anatomical location of organs in human body. Sci Res J 2:12–15Google Scholar
  151. Rayner K (1998) Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychol Bull 124:372–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Raynor DK (1992) Writing patient information—a pharmacist’s guide. Pharm J 254:180–182Google Scholar
  153. Raynor DKT, Svarstad B, Knapp P, Aslani P, Rogers MB, Koo M et al (2007) Consumer medication information in the United States, Europe and Australia: a comparative evaluation. J Am Pharm Assoc 47:717–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Roethlein BE (1912) The relative legibility of different faces of printing types. Am J Psychol 23:1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Sass SM, Legge GE, Lee H-W (2006) Low-vision reading speed: influences of linguistic inference and aging. Optom Vis Sci 83:166–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Sawalha AF, Sweileh WM, Zyoud SH, Jabi SW (2008) Comparative analysis of patient package inserts of local and imported anti-infective agents in Palestine. Libyan J Med 34(4):181–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Scheunpflug C (2008) Entwicklung eines Testsystems, um pharmazeutische und medizinische Fachbegriffe patientenverständlich zu erklären (development of a test system for explaining pharmaceutical and medical terms to patients). Thesis, Friedrich Schiller University, JenaGoogle Scholar
  158. Shiyanbola OO, Smith PD, Huang YM, Mansukhani SG (2017) Pharmacists and patients feedback on empirically designed prescription warning labels: a qualitative study. Int J Clin Pharm 39:187–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Shruti DA, Sarala NS, Bhuvana K (2016) Analysis of package inserts of drugs utilized in a tertiary care hospital. J Young Pharm 8:275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Sillo HB, Masota NE, Kisoma S, Rago L, Mgoyela V, Kaale EA (2018) Conformity of package inserts information to regulatory requirements among selected branded and generic medicinal products circulating on the east African market. PLoS One 13:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Sless D (2007) PIL testing: misapplied and out of context. Regulatory Rapporteur J 11:14–15Google Scholar
  162. Sless D, Shrensky R (2006) Writing about medicines for people. Communication Research Institute, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  163. Sless D, Wiseman R (1997) Writing about medicines for people: usability guidelines for consumer medicine information, 2nd edn. Department of Health and Family Services, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  164. Sojourner RJ, Wogalter MS (1997) The influence of pictorials on evaluations of prescription medication instructions. Drug Inf J 31:963–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Soleimani H, Mohammadi E (2012) The effect of text typographical features on legibility, comprehension, and retrieval of EFL learners. Engl Lang Teach 5:207–216Google Scholar
  166. Spencer H, Reynolds L, Coe B (1974) Typographic coding in lists and bibliographies. Appl Ergonomics 5:136–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Taylor WL (1953) Cloze procedure: a new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Mass Commun Q 30:415–433Google Scholar
  168. Tayyem MM, Takrouri MSM (2009) Patient’s safety information available on drug package inserts used in neuroanesthesia. Internet J Anesthesiol 19:1–7Google Scholar
  169. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2004) Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. OJ; L136:34–57Google Scholar
  170. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2012) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (Consolidated version: 16 Nov 2012). Accessed 27 Sep 2019
  171. Tillmann D (2014) Metaanalyse von Lesestudien (meta-analysis of reading studies). Thesis, Faculty of Media, HTWK/Leipzig University of Applied Sciences, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  172. Tinker MA (1963) Legibility of print. The Iowa State University Press, IowaGoogle Scholar
  173. Tinker MA, Paterson DG (1928) Influence of type form on speed of reading. J Appl Psychol 12:359–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Tinker MA, Paterson DG (1929) Studies of typographical factors influencing speed of reading, III. Length of line. J Appl Psychol 13:205–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. Tinker MA, Paterson DG (1931a) Studies of typographical factors influencing speed of reading, VII. Variations in colour of print and background. J Appl Psychol 15:471–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. Tinker MA, Paterson DG (1931b) Studies of typographical factors influencing speed of reading, V. Simultaneous variation of type size and line length. J Appl Psychol 15:72–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Tinker MA, Paterson DG (1944) Eye movements in reading black print on white background and red print on dark green background. Am J Psychol 1:93–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. Tinker MA, Paterson DG (1949) Speed of reading nine point type in relation to line width and leading. J Appl Psychol 33:81–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. Tong V, Raynor DK, Aslani P (2014) Design and comprehensibility of over-the-counter product labels and leaflets: a narrative review. Int J Clin Pharm 36:865–872PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. Tong V, Raynor DK, Aslani P (2018) Comparative user testing of Australian and UK over-the-counter labels and leaflets for Diclofenac. Ther Innov Regul Sci 52:38–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. University of Hohenheim (2010) Der Hohenheimer Verständlichkeitsindex (The Hohenheimer Comprehensibility index). Accessed 23 Dec 2018
  182. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (2001) Guidance on medical device patient labeling; final guidance for industry and FDA reviewers. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  183. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Office of Device Evaluation (2016) Applying human factors and usability engineering to medical device—guidance for industry and food and drug administration staff. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  184. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) (2009) Guidance for industry—label comprehension studies for non-prescription drug products—draft guidance. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  185. US Food and Drug Administration (2018) 21CFR280.20 content and format of a medication guide. Accessed 28 Sept 2019
  186. Vaishnavi V, Kuechler W, Petter S, De Leoz G (2019) Design science research in information systems. Accessed 28 Sept 2019
  187. Van Aken JE (2005) Management research as a design science: articulating the research products of mode 2 knowledge production in management. Br J Manage 16:19–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. Van Beusekom M, Bos M, Wolterbeek R, Guchelaar H-J, van den Broek J (2015) Patients’ preferences for visuals: differences in the preferred level of detail, type of background and type of frame of icons depicting organs between literate and low-literate people. Patient Educ Counsel. 98:226–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. Van Beusekom MM, Grootens-Wiegers P, Bos MJW, Guchelaar HJ, van den Broek JM (2016) Low literacy and written drug information: information-seeking, leaflet evaluation and preferences, and roles for images. Int J Clin Pharm 38:1372–1379PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. Van Beusekom MM, Kerkhoven AH, Bos MJW, Guchelaar HJ, van den Broek JM (2018) The extent and effects of patient involvement in pictogram design for written drug information: a short systematic review. Drug Discov Today 23:1312–1318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. Van Dijk L, Monteiro SP, Vervloet M, de Bie J, Raynor DKT (2014a) Study on the package leaflets and the summary of product characteristics of medicinal products for human use—PIL-S study. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  192. Van Dijk L, Vervloet M, Monteiro SP, van der Burgt S, Raynor DKT (2014b) Feasibility and value of a possible “key information section” in patient information leaflets and summaries of product characteristics of medicinal products for human use—the PILS-BOX study. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  193. Vander Stichele RH, Van Haecht CH, Braem MD, Bogaert MG (1991) Attitude of the public toward technical package inserts for medication information in Belgium. Ann Pharmacother 25:1002–1006Google Scholar
  194. Vander Stichele RH, De Potter B, Vyncke P, Bogaert MG (1996) Attitude of physicians toward patient package inserts for medication information in Belgium. Patient Educ Counsel. 28:5–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. Vinker S, Eliyahu V, Yaphe J (2007) The effect of drug information leaflets on patient behaviour. Isr Med Assoc J 9:383–386PubMedGoogle Scholar
  196. Weitbrecht WU, Voßkämper C (2002) Influence of the drug package information paper on compliance of neurological and psychiatric outpatients. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr 70:178–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  197. Wolf A (2015) An analysis and evaluation of the development of the QRD human product information template used in package leaflets—theses. University of Bonn, BonnGoogle Scholar
  198. Wolf MS, King J, Wilson EAH, Curtis LM, Bailey SC, Duhig J et al (2012) Usability of FDA-approved medication guides. J Gen Intern Med 27:1714–1720PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  199. Wolf A, Fuchs J, Schweim HG (2014) Readability of the European QRD template—the European QRD template version 8 in comparison to its predecessor and a shorter model template. Pharm Ind 76:1312–1322Google Scholar
  200. Wolf A, Fuchs J, Schweim HG (2016) Implementation of the European QRD template in package leaflets of centralized approved medicines. Ther Innov Regul Sci 50:106–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. Wolff JS, Wogalter MS (1993) Test and development of pharmaceutical pictorials. In: Monica S (ed) Human factors and ergonomics society, interface 93—humanizing technology proceedings, pp 187–192Google Scholar
  202. Wolka A, Simpson K, Lockwood K, Neuhauser L (2015) Focus on health literacy: recommendations to improve European Union risk management plan public summaries. Ther Innov Regul Sci 49:369–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  203. Yu D, Park H, Gerold D, Legge GE (2010) Comparing reading speed for horizontal and vertical English text. J Vis 10:1–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  204. Zachrisson B (1965) Studies in the legibility of printed text. Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm, Göteborg, UppsalaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Drug Regulatory AffairsInstitute of Pharmacy, University of BonnBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations