↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The evaluation of pharmaceutical pictograms among elderly patients in community pharmacy settings – a multicenter pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
Title
The evaluation of pharmaceutical pictograms among elderly patients in community pharmacy settings – a multicenter pilot study
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, February 2018
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s150113
Pubmed ID
Authors

Piotr Merks, Damian Świeczkowski, Marcin Balcerzak, Ewelina Drelich, Katarzyna Białoszewska, Natalia Cwalina, Jerzy Krysinski, Miłosz Jaguszewski, Annie Pouliot, Regis Vaillancourt

Abstract

The search for new ways to optimize the use of medications by patients has led the pharmaceutical community to promote the idea of introducing pictograms into routine practice. The main intention of pictograms is to ease patient adherence and to reduce potential risks or errors associated with the use of medications. To evaluate a series of pharmaceutical pictograms for patient comprehension. The study was conducted in community pharmacies within a European Union country that belongs to the professional research network. Structured interviews were used to evaluate the pictograms for patient comprehension. This consisted of an assessment of the following: the transparency and translucency of the pictograms, health literacy, and pictogram recall. Participants were also given the opportunity to provide feedback on how to improve the pictograms. The primary endpoint was pictogram comprehension. Secondary outcomes included recall of the pictograms and pictogram translucency. The study included 68 patients with whom face-to-face interviews were performed. Low transparency results (≤25%) and extensive patient feedback in initial interviews led to the withdrawal of certain pictograms (n=15) from the evaluation. Among the pictograms included in the final stage of our research, 22 pictograms (62.8%) obtained an acceptable transparency level ≥66%. All pictograms passed the short-term recall test with positive results. A majority of the designed and modified pictograms reached satisfactory guess-ability scores. Feedback from patients enabled modification of the pictograms and proved that patients have an important voice in the discussion regarding the design of additional pictograms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 4 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Student > Postgraduate 3 4%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 35 48%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 11%
Psychology 8 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 36 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 March 2018.
All research outputs
#7,899,670
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#577
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,240
of 448,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#12
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 448,849 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.