↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

A narrative review on do’s and don’ts in prescription label writing – lessons for pharmacists

Overview of attention for article published in Integrated Pharmacy Research and Practice, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
A narrative review on do’s and don’ts in prescription label writing – lessons for pharmacists
Published in
Integrated Pharmacy Research and Practice, June 2018
DOI 10.2147/iprp.s163968
Pubmed ID
Authors

NR Samaranayake, Wasana Bandara, Chinthana Manchanayake

Abstract

Providing medicines information is a key role of a pharmacist. Miscommunication between pharmacist and patient may lead to adverse drug events or therapeutic failure. The aim of the review was to summarize the available research findings on factors that lead to poor communication between pharmacist and patient when providing written medicines information on dispensing and auxiliary labels and identify successful interventional approaches that help to alleviate these concerns. We selected articles available on PubMed, SAGE, and Google Scholar databases that are relevant to our objective. A total of 33 articles that matched the objectives of this review were retrieved and evaluated by all three authors. It was found that patient literacy levels, number of medicines dispensed, format and organization of the label, complexity of dosing instructions, precision of writing dosing instructions and use of icons, graphics and pictograms were aspects that were frequently used, and hence assessed by research groups on medicine label writing. Most studies reported that simple and straight forward instructions written legibly were better comprehended by patients. Based on our findings, we provide here useful tips for pharmacists on writing dosing instructions for patients. Finally, we spotlight crucial research gaps related to communicating written dosing instructions that need to be addressed in the future.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 2 29%
Student > Postgraduate 1 14%
Other 1 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 14%
Student > Bachelor 1 14%
Other 1 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 29%
Psychology 2 29%
Unspecified 2 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 June 2018.
All research outputs
#10,429,888
of 13,079,903 outputs
Outputs from Integrated Pharmacy Research and Practice
#52
of 63 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,356
of 270,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Integrated Pharmacy Research and Practice
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,079,903 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 63 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 270,324 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.