Goldsworthy Richard, Kaplan Brian
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA.
Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2006 Jun;76(6):453-60. doi: 10.1002/bdra.20813.
Previous research has noted potential inadequacies in the warning labels and symbols used with some teratogenic medications. A clear teratogen warning symbol represents an important component of risk mitigation for accidental teratogen exposure.
Several teratogen warning symbols were developed through rapid prototyping and focus groups. A nationally distributed field trial (n = 300) examined the relative effectiveness of 6 candidate symbols, including the symbol in use at the time of the study. Measures included open-ended interpretation, closed-ended preference, and demographic surveys. Each participant was shown a single symbol and asked what it meant, to whom it applied, and what that person should do. Text statements were added to the symbol and participants were asked to reinterpret the warning. Participants were told the intended message of the warning, shown all 6 symbols, and asked to choose the most effective symbol.
Four of 6 symbols achieved levels of correct interpretation close to or exceeding the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) benchmark of 85% and none exceeded the ANSI limit of 5% critical confusion. Symbols elicited varying conceptual responses. Respondents considered 1 symbol to be the most effective, by a 4 to 1 margin. Several outcomes varied by age and by ethnicity.
Several symbols emerged as viable alternatives to the current symbol; however, no 1 symbol was clearly found to be the most effective. Instead, the symbol considered "best" depends on the messages that are considered most essential to the warning. Additionally, it appears a symbol without the addition of text can convey most, but possibly not all, of the meaning required of the warning label. Next steps should include further symbol refinement, closer examination of text additions to symbols, and validation of the candidate symbols and warnings through a large-scale field trial.
先前的研究指出了某些致畸药物所使用的警示标签和符号可能存在不足之处。一个清晰的致畸剂警示符号是降低意外接触致畸剂风险的重要组成部分。
通过快速原型制作和焦点小组开发了几种致畸剂警示符号。一项全国范围的现场试验(n = 300)检验了6个候选符号的相对有效性,包括研究时正在使用的符号。测量指标包括开放式解释、封闭式偏好和人口统计学调查。向每位参与者展示一个符号,并询问其含义、适用于何人以及此人应采取何种行动。在符号上添加文本陈述,然后要求参与者重新解释该警示。告知参与者该警示的预期信息,向他们展示所有6个符号,并要求他们选择最有效的符号。
6个符号中有4个的正确解释水平接近或超过了美国国家标准学会(ANSI)85%的基准,且没有一个超过ANSI 5%的严重混淆限制。符号引发了不同的概念性反应。受访者认为有一个符号最为有效,支持率为4比1。几个结果因年龄和种族而异。
有几个符号成为了当前符号的可行替代方案;然而,没有一个符号被明确认定为最有效。相反,被认为“最佳”的符号取决于被认为对该警示最为关键的信息。此外,似乎一个不添加文本的符号能够传达警示标签所需的大部分(但可能不是全部)含义。接下来的步骤应包括进一步完善符号、更仔细地研究给符号添加文本的情况,以及通过大规模现场试验对候选符号和警示进行验证。