Display options
Cite
Hammar T, Nilsson AL, Hovstadius B. Patients' views on electronic patient information leaflets. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2016;14(2):702doi: 10.18549/PharmPract.2016.02.702.
Hammar, T., Nilsson, A. L., & Hovstadius, B. (2016). Patients' views on electronic patient information leaflets. Pharmacy practice, 14(2), 702. https://doi.org/10.18549/PharmPract.2016.02.702
Hammar, Tora, et al. "Patients' views on electronic patient information leaflets." Pharmacy practice vol. 14,2 (2016): 702. doi: https://doi.org/10.18549/PharmPract.2016.02.702
Hammar T, Nilsson AL, Hovstadius B. Patients' views on electronic patient information leaflets. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2016 Apr-Jun;14(2):702. doi: 10.18549/PharmPract.2016.02.702. Epub 2016 Jun 15. PMID: 27382423; PMCID: PMC4930857.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Pharm Pract (Granada). 2016 Apr-Jun;14(2):702. doi: 10.18549/PharmPract.2016.02.702. Epub 2016 Jun 15.

Patients' views on electronic patient information leaflets.

Pharmacy practice

Tora Hammar, Anna-Lena Nilsson, Bo Hovstadius

Affiliations

  1. Researcher. eHealth Institute, Department of Medicine and Optometry, Linnaeus University . Kalmar ( Sweden ). [email protected].
  2. Researcher. eHealth Institute, Department of Medicine and Optometry, Linnaeus University . Kalmar ( Sweden ). [email protected].
  3. Associate professor, research fellow. eHealth Institute, Department of Medicine and Optometry, Linnaeus University . Kalmar ( Sweden ). [email protected].

PMID: 27382423 PMCID: PMC4930857 DOI: 10.18549/PharmPract.2016.02.702

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Information in society and in health care is currently undergoing a transition from paper to digital formats, and the main source of information will probably be electronic in the future.

OBJECTIVE: To explore patients' use and perceptions of the patient information leaflet included in the medication package, and their attitude towards a transition to an electronic version.

METHODS: The data was collected during October to November 2014 among individuals in South-Eastern Sweden, using a questionnaire (n=406, response rate 78%) and interviews (n=15).

RESULTS: The questionnaire showed that the majority of the respondents (52%) occasionally read the patient information leaflet, 37% always read it, and 11% never read it. Almost half of the patients (41%) were positive towards reading the patient information leaflet electronically while 32% were hesitant and 26% neutral. A majority of the patients would request to get the patient information leaflet printed at the pharmacy if it was not included in the package. There were differences in attitude related to age and gender. The interviews showed that patients had mixed views on a transition to an electronic patient information leaflet. The patients perceived several positive aspects with an electronic patient information leaflet but were concerned about elderly patients.

CONCLUSION: Although many were positive towards reading the patient information leaflet electronically, the majority prefer the patient information leaflet in paper form. Providing appropriate and useful eHealth services for patients to access the patient information leaflet electronically, along with education, could prepare patients for a transition to electronic patient information leaflet.

Keywords: Drug Labeling; Patient Education as Topic; Patient Medication Knowledge; Pharmacies; Qualitative Research; Surveys and Questionnaires; Sweden; Telemedicine

References

  1. Drug Saf. 2003;26(1):1-11 - PubMed
  2. Health Info Libr J. 2010 Sep;27(3):208-16 - PubMed
  3. Inform Health Soc Care. 2016;41(1):1-19 - PubMed
  4. J R Soc Med. 2003 Feb;96(2):74-6 - PubMed
  5. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2012 Nov-Dec;8(6):579-84 - PubMed
  6. Pharm World Sci. 2005 Feb;27(1):35-40 - PubMed
  7. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2014 Jul-Aug;10(4):656-68 - PubMed
  8. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004 Jun 29;2:32 - PubMed
  9. JAMA. 2002 May 22-29;287(20):2691-700 - PubMed
  10. Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Jul;80(1):113-9 - PubMed
  11. Ann Pharmacother. 2003 Feb;37(2):259-67 - PubMed
  12. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011 Sep;20(9):987-95 - PubMed
  13. Patient Educ Couns. 2014 Dec;97(3):310-26 - PubMed
  14. Health Technol Assess. 2007 Feb;11(5):iii, 1-160 - PubMed
  15. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2013 Sep-Oct;9(5):640-5 - PubMed
  16. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Apr 23;14:183 - PubMed
  17. Patient Educ Couns. 2007 Jun;66(3):346-52 - PubMed
  18. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2011 Jun;7(2):202-7 - PubMed
  19. Fam Pract. 2012 Dec;29(6):742-7 - PubMed
  20. Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Mar;78(3):329-36 - PubMed
  21. Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Oct;63(1-2):24-8 - PubMed
  22. Drugs Aging. 2012 Jun 1;29(6):477-94 - PubMed
  23. BMC Fam Pract. 2014 Oct 02;15:163 - PubMed
  24. Nurse Educ Today. 2004 Feb;24(2):105-12 - PubMed
  25. J R Soc Med. 2003 May;96(5):219-22 - PubMed
  26. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Oct;22(10):816-25 - PubMed
  27. Pharm World Sci. 2007 Dec;29(6):688-94 - PubMed
  28. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2001 Oct;26(5):331-42 - PubMed
  29. Ann Pharmacother. 2007 May;41(5):777-82 - PubMed
  30. Res Nurs Health. 2000 Aug;23(4):334-40 - PubMed
  31. Health Expect. 2014 Apr;17(2):220-31 - PubMed
  32. Pharm World Sci. 2003 Oct;25(5):191-6 - PubMed
  33. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012 Jul 10;12:67 - PubMed
  34. Pharm World Sci. 2009 Oct;31(5):525-37 - PubMed
  35. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002 Jul-Aug;9(4):346-58 - PubMed
  36. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2003 Jan-Feb;12(1):55-9 - PubMed
  37. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014 Feb;23(2):128-39 - PubMed
  38. Fam Pract. 1998 Oct;15(5):471-9 - PubMed
  39. Int J Clin Pharm. 2014 Aug;36(4):827-34 - PubMed

Publication Types