Hill J, Bird H
Clinical Pharmacology Unit (Rheumatism Research, University of Leeds), Chapel Allerton Hospital, Chapeltown Road, Leeds, West Yorkshire LS7 4SA, UK.
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2003 Jan;42(1):66-70. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keg032.
To develop and assess the effectiveness of a drug information leaflet (DIL) for D-penicillamine (DPA) and determine whether additional verbal information provides enhanced benefit.
Three preliminary studies were undertaken: a reading age study; the development of a DIL for DPA; and a DPA knowledge questionnaire. The primary study assessed the effect of the DIL on the knowledge of 30 patients at weeks 0 and 24 after commencing DPA. A follow-up study of 100 patients randomly assigned to receive the DIL alone (control group) or with additional verbal backup (experimental group) determined the effects of additional verbal information by comparison of DPA knowledge questionnaire scores at weeks 0 and 24.
The reading study showed that 12% of the sample had difficulty reading and so the DPA DIL was designed to be easy to read using the Flesch Reading Index. An assessment of knowledge of DPA prior to reading the DIL resulted in scores ranging from 0 to 13 with a median of 2 (maximum possible 14). By week 24 the median score was 10 (range 6-14), which was significant at P < 0.0001. The assessment of additional verbal backup showed that both the control group and the experimental group knew little about DPA on study entry, with a median score 2 in each group. On study exit, both groups knew significantly more (P < 0.001) about the drug; the control group scored 9 and the experimental group 11 (not significantly different; P=0.109).
A large minority of patients have poor reading skills, but when a DIL is designed to be easy to read patients gain significant amounts of knowledge from it. Providing additional verbal explanations did bring about increases in knowledge but these were not significant.
编写并评估青霉胺(DPA)药物信息手册(DIL)的有效性,并确定额外的口头信息是否能带来更大益处。
进行了三项初步研究:一项阅读年龄研究;编写DPA的DIL;以及一份DPA知识问卷。主要研究评估了DIL对30名开始服用DPA的患者在第0周和第24周时知识水平的影响。一项对100名患者的随访研究将他们随机分为仅接受DIL组(对照组)或同时接受额外口头辅助组(实验组),通过比较第0周和第24周时DPA知识问卷得分来确定额外口头信息的效果。
阅读研究表明,12%的样本阅读有困难,因此DPA的DIL使用弗莱什阅读指数设计得易于阅读。在阅读DIL之前对DPA知识的评估得分范围为0至13,中位数为2(最高可能为14)。到第24周时,中位数得分是10(范围6 - 14),P < 0.0001,差异有统计学意义。对额外口头辅助的评估表明,对照组和实验组在研究开始时对DPA了解甚少,每组中位数得分均为2。在研究结束时,两组对该药物的了解都显著增加(P < 0.001);对照组得分为9,实验组得分为11(差异无统计学意义;P = 0.109)。
相当一部分患者阅读能力较差,但当DIL设计得易于阅读时,患者能从中获得大量知识。提供额外的口头解释确实能增加知识,但不显著。