Healthy Skepticism Library item: 10622

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: Journal Article

Khurana RN, Lee PP, Challa P.
Readability of ocular medication inserts.
J Glaucoma 2003 Feb; 12:(1):50-3
http://meta.wkhealth.com/pt/pt-core/template-journal/lwwgateway/media/landingpage.htm?issn=1057-0829&volume=12&issue=1&spage=50

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To determine the readability of ocular medication inserts and whether they are an appropriate source of medication information for patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Flesch-Kincaid and SMOG readability formulas were used to calculate the readability of 10 common glaucoma medication inserts (Alphagan, Azopt, Betoptic, Betimolol, Cosopt, Optipranolol, Rescula, Trusopt, Timoptic, and Xalatan) and 6 widely used nonglaucoma medication inserts (Alrex, Lotemax, Ocuflox, Patanol, Pred Forte, and Zaditor). RESULTS: The 10 glaucoma medication inserts surveyed required an average overall grade level of 12.9 +/- 0.6 by the Flesch-Kincaid Index and of 13.5 +/- 0.6 by the SMOG formula. The 6 nonglaucoma medication inserts had an overall grade level of 11.1 +/- 0.6 by the Flesch-Kincaid Index and of 11.7 +/- 0.9 by the SMOG formula. All medications reviewed were above the eighth-grade level recommended by the Flesch-Kincaid Index for public materials. CONCLUSIONS: Ocular medication inserts are too complex to be an adequate source of medication information for the average American adult. This study highlights the need for improving communication and education regarding patients’ medications.

Keywords:
Antihypertensive Agents/standards* Comprehension Drug Labeling/standards* Humans Ophthalmic Solutions/standards* Patient Education/standards* Prescriptions, Drug/standards* Reading* Teaching Materials/standards