首页> 外文OA文献 >Abbreviations and symbols in a large sample of medicinal package leaflets: automatic detection and comprehension assessment
【2h】

Abbreviations and symbols in a large sample of medicinal package leaflets: automatic detection and comprehension assessment

机译:大量药用包装单张中的缩写和符号:自动检测和理解评估

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Medicines package leaflets (PL) need to be clear and comprehensible, according to legal recommendations. Abbreviations and symbols (A&S) are not recommended since their use may lead to misunderstandings and medication errors. Objectives: 1) identify, typify and quantify all A&S in a large sample of Portuguese PL, 2) detect discrepancies between these A&S and regulations, and 3) assess how educated individuals interpret A&S found in Portuguese PL. Methods: descriptive and exploratory study. Descriptive study - 531 PL were visually inspected in order to identify all A&S and a computer tool was programmed to count these A&S. All A&S were typified according to classificatory groups (e.g. abbreviations of diseases names) and evaluated according to the regulations. Exploratory study - the interpretation of 373 A&S by 26 undergraduates was assessed with a questionnaire. Results: 828 different A&S were identified (6407 occurrences). The average number of A&S per PL was 12.1 (SD=13.1). Thirteen classificatory groups were built. Non-compliant A&S were found. Only a very low percentage of responses was correct (9.9%). Conclusion: A&S were prevalent in PL, contrary to the international recommendations. A significant number of technical A&S was unfamiliar to a group of educated people. Automatic tools and procedures regarding these readability features should be developed in order to validate PL’s compliance with regulations.
机译:根据法律建议,药品包装说明书(PL)必须清晰易懂。不建议使用缩写和符号(A&S),因为使用它们可能会引起误解和用药错误。目标:1)识别,分类和量化葡萄牙PL大样本中的所有A&S,2)检测这些A&S与法规之间的差异,以及3)评估受过教育的人员如何解释葡萄牙语PL中发现的A&S。方法:描述性和探索性研究。描述性研究-目视检查531 PL,以识别所有A&S,并使用计算机工具对这些A&S进行计数。所有A&S均根据分类组进行分类(例如疾病名称的缩写)并根据规定进行评估。探索性研究-用问卷调查法评估了26名大学生对373 A&S的解释。结果:鉴定出828种不同的A&S(6407次)。每个PL的平均A&S数量为12.1(SD = 13.1)。建立了13个分类组。发现不符合要求的A&S。只有非常低的回答百分比是正确的(9.9%)。结论:A&S在PL中普遍存在,与国际建议相反。大量受过教育的人不熟悉大量的A&S技术。应该开发有关这些可读性功能的自动工具和程序,以验证PL是否符合法规。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号