Evaluation of Written Prescription Information Provided in Community Pharmacies: A National Study Bonnie L. Svarstad, Ph.D. Jeanine K. Mount, Ph.D. and.

Evaluation of Written Prescription Information Provided in Community

Pharmacies: A National Study

Bonnie L. Svarstad, Ph.D.

Jeanine K. Mount, Ph.D. and R.Ph.

University of Wisconsin - Madison

Study done in cooperation with...

• FDA• National Association of Boards of Pharmacy • National expert panel

National Expert Panel

• 16 experts• Nominated by seven pharmacy organizations• Pharmacy practitioners and experts in

pharmacotherapy and communications • Faculty at 9 pharmacy colleges and universities

Panelists• Mary Amato

• Heidi Anderson-Harper

• Robert Beardsley

• C. A. Bond

• Marie Gardner

• Betty Dong

• Carole Kimberlin

• Duane Kirking

• Sharlea Leatherwood

• Matt Osterhaus

• Anthony Provenzano

• Mary Pubentz

• Betsy Sleath

• Jenene Spencer

• Judith Sommers Hanson

• Gayle Dichter

• Bonnie Svarstad, Chair

Past Studies

• Distribution of patient information increased from 16% in 1982 to 74% in 1998

• 1999 study in 8 states found 87% given information but quality was variable

[Svarstad & Bultman, 1999]

How does this study differ?

• Pharmacies sampled from national list

• Professional shoppers visited pharmacies

• Experts and consumers rated information

• Additional analyses performed

Primary Aims of Study • What percent of patients are given written

prescription information?

• How do experts rate this information?

• How do consumers rate this information?

• How well does information adhere to criteria for useful medication information?

Secondary Aims of Study

• How do expert/consumer ratings compare?

• Do ratings vary by consumer background?

• Do ratings vary by pharmacy type?

• Do ratings vary by leaflet characteristics?

Objectives for Today

• Review study design and procedures

• Review evaluation criteria and forms

• Present results:- Leaflet distribution and ratings

- Factors that might influence ratings

Study Design

• Shoppers acting as patients presented four prescriptions at each pharmacy

• Patient information leaflets mailed to UW

• Expert panelists rated leaflets

• Consumer panelists rated leaflets

• Rating forms mailed to UW for analysis

Sampling of Pharmacies

• Excluded: hospital, clinic, LTC, mail order, IV infusion, dispensing physician, government settings, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, states prohibiting filling of prescriptions for research

• Selected from 57,157 community pharmacies

• Simple random sample of 384 pharmacies

• 35% independent, 65% chain

• Data collected in 44 states

Observer Protocol

• Shoppers hired by professional shopper firm

• 72% of visits by females

• 66% of visits by persons 45 years or older

• Mean age = 50

Standard Scenario

• Presented new prescriptions for atenolol, glyburide, atorvastatin, nitroglycerin SL

• Did not ask questions or initiate talk

• If asked, patient-observer reported:- new diagnoses: heart disease,

diabetes - no prior use of study drugs

Observer Protocol (cont.)

• Shopper mailed materials to shopper firm

• Firm removed pharmacy/pharmacist names

• All leaflets, brochures, other information items mailed to researchers

• All items referred to as “leaflets”

Expert Evaluation Forms

• Each form included 8 general criteria and 62-63 sub-criteria

• Eight criteria from 1996 Action Plan for “useful” information

• Sub-criteria based on approved labeling

• Forms revised until all panelists approved

Eight Criteria from 1996 Action Plan

for Useful Information 1. Drug names and indications

2. Contraindications and what to do before using

3. Specific directions about how to use, monitor, get most benefit

4. Specific precautions and how to avoid harm

Eight Criteria from 1996 Action Plan

for Useful Information5. Serious and frequent adverse reactions, what to do

6. General information, encouraged to ask questions

7. Scientifically accurate, unbiased, up-to-date

8. Readily comprehensible and legible

Scoring Method for Expert Forms

• Each criterion rated by 4-10 sub-criteria • Each sub-criterion rated by adherence level:

full (2), partial (1), no adherence (0)

• Computer calculated % points obtained

• Scale ranged from 0 to 100% (best)

Scoring Categories Level of Adherence Point Range %

5 80-100

4 60-79

3 40-59

2 20-39

1 0-19

Inter-rater Reliability

• Experts assigned to one of four drug groups

• Independently rated same sub-set of leaflets

• Good inter-rater reliability obtained

• Pearson r for overall adherence = 0.90-0.97

Expert Rating Process

• Each expert assigned to one of four drugs

• Each leaflet rated by one expert

• Experts rated 1,367 pharmacy-generated leaflets and 31 manufacturer-generated leaflets (mean = 87 per expert)

Consumer Evaluation Form

• 1-page form with 12 items

• Based on 1996 Action Plan and Krass et al

• Items scored 1 (poor) to 5 (good)

• Overall scale ranged from 0 - 100% (best)

Scoring Categories for Consumer Form Level of Adherence Point Range %

5 80-100

4 60-79

3 40-59

2 20-39

1 0-19

Three Legibility Items

• Poor-good print size

• Poor-good print quality

• Poor-good spacing between lines

Six Comprehensibility Items

• Poorly-well organized

• Poor-good length

• Unclear-clear

• Unhelpful-helpful

• Incomplete-complete

• Hard-easy to find important information

Three Summary Items

• Hard-easy to read

• Hard-easy to understand

• Not useful-useful

Test-Retest Reliability

• Nine consumers independently rated 18 leaflets at two sessions

• Good test-retest reliability obtained

• Pearson r for overall score = 0.82

Consumer Rating Process

• Recruited 154 consumer raters in 11 states

• Recruited at senior centers, clinics, work and social organizations

• Facilitator met with 8-15 raters per session

• Each rater independently rated ~ 10 leaflets

Rater Characteristics

• Mean age = 61 yrs (20-89 yrs)

• 68% female, 89% white

• 77% used medication daily

• 8% not completed high school, 38% completed high school, 54% beyond h.s.

% Patient-Observers Given Any Written Information

atenolol 89.6

glyburide 88.8

atorvastatin 89.3

nitroglycerin 88.3

Expert Ratings, All Criteria (n=1,367 leaflets)

3 4 3 410 11 11 10

33

2024

17

42

59

49

56

0

25

50

75

atenolol glyburide atorvastatin nitroglycerin

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Expert Ratings by Criterion• Highest Ratings: #7:

accuracy, unbiased

• Moderate Ratings: #1: names, indication#3: directions

• Low Ratings:#5: ADRs, what to do#6: general

information

• Lowest Ratings:#2: contraindications#4: precautions#8:

legibility/comprehens.

Highest Expert Ratings - Criterion 7 Scientifically Accurate, Unbiased, Up-to-date

1 3

95

0

25

50

75

100


<1<1

Moderate Expert Ratings - Criteria 1 & 3

12 1216

3

29

19

11

47

32

19

0

25

50

75

1 Name, indications 3 Directions


Low Expert Ratings - Criteria 5 & 6

15

32332525 26

14

4

13 13

0

25

50

75

5 ADRs, what to do 6 General information


Lowest Expert Ratings - Criteria 2 & 4

1522

3628

16

2927

14

5 7

0

25

50

75

2 Contraindications 4 Precautions


Lowest Expert Ratings - Criterion 8Legibility/Comprehensibility

1

24

57

18

0

25

50

75


Consumer Ratings, All Items (%)

9 106 6

16 15 1712

20

30 2832 34

2420

28 29

17

27

20

0

25

50



Consumer Scores by Item • Scores varied by item • Lowest scores: print size, print quality, spacing,

overall readability • Moderate-high scores: easy to understand, useful• 36% of leaflets given low ratings on readability

Consumer Scores on Readability &

Understandability Items

19

8

17

11

21 2223

33

20

25

0

20

40

Ease of reading Ease of Understanding

1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (good)

Consumer Scores on Usefulness Item

8 9

21

3230

0

20

40

Useful

1 (poor) 2 3 4 5 (good)

Expert Versus Consumer Ratings• Low correlation between total scores

• Expert rating of usefulness was related to consumer usefulness item

• Expert rating of usefulness was unrelated to consumer readability item

Expert Rating of Usefulness by Consumer Rating of Usefulness Item (n=339 atenolol leaflets)

Consumer Score Mean expert (%)

1 (poor) 40.3

2 46.3

3 50.0

4 55.0

5 (good) 55.0 (p<.001)

Conclusions -- Part I

• 89% given some information

• Ratings varied by criterion

• Experts most critical of information on contraindications and precautions and legibility/comprehensibility

• Consumers most critical of readability

Results -- Part IIWhat factors might influence leaflet ratings? • Consumer characteristics?

• Pharmacy type?

• Leaflet characteristics?

• Changes made by pharmacy organization or pharmacy integrator?

Leaflet Ratings by Consumer Characteristics

• Ratings unrelated to gender, age, education, current drug use

• White raters gave higher scores than non-white raters for nitroglycerin leaflets

• Race unrelated to other ratings

Leaflet Distribution and Ratings by Pharmacy Type

79

4349

98

5565

0

25

50

75

100

% given leaflet Expert rating Consumer rating

Independent Chain

P<.001 all tests

Expert Ratings by Leaflet Length

44 44 45 46

56 55 5560 63

57 57 57

0

25

50

75


<5.6 inches5.6-11 inches11-16 inches

P<.001 all tests

Consumer Ratings by Leaflet Length

52 5058 56

6358

6468

74697066

0

25

50

75


<5.6 inches

5.6-11 inches

11-16 inches

P<.001 all tests

Consumer Ratings by Font Size

5550

5459

64 6368 70

0

25

50

75


< 10 point

>= 10 point

P<.001 all tests

Consumer Ratings of Readability by Font Size

2.72.4

2.7 2.8

3.4 3.43.6 3.6

1

2

3

4

5


< 10 point>= 10 point

P<.001 all tests

Data Vendors Examined

• Vendor - not ascertainable 13.5% (46)

• Vendor 1 - partial message 5.0% (17)

• Vendor 1 - full message 81.5% (277)

• Vendor 2* (comparison leaflets,institutional)

Leaflet Length by Vendor

Vendor % leaflets <5.6 inches

Vendor - not ascertainable 82.6%

Vendor 1- partial message 94.1%

Vendor 1- full message 27.1%

Vendor 2* 0.0%

P<.001

Results By Data Vendor

• Substantial variability by data vendor

• Highest: Vendor 1 and Vendor 2

• Lowest: Partial messages and unidentified vendors

Expert Ratings by Vendor

32 31 33 302824

3026

56 56 5661

75

59

77

63

0

25

50

75


Vendor-NA Vendor1-partial Vendor1-full Vendor2*

P<.001 all tests

Ratings of Atenolol Leaflets by Vendor

32 3228

1828

188

28

56

74

6151

75

100

62

51

0

25

50

75

100

1 Name,indication

2 Contraind. 3 Directions 4 Precautions


.

P<.001 all tests

Ratings of Atenolol Leaflets by Vendor

28

14

91

47

20

6

85

4444 44

91

44

99

43

94

83

0

25

50

75

100

5 ADRs 6 General 7 Accuracy 8 Leg/comp


P<.001 all tests except Criterion 7 (p>.05)

Consumer Ratings by Vendor

4842

53 53

40 43 4035

62 6065 68

89 8590 87

0

25

50

75

100



P<.001 all tests

Consumer Ratings of Atenolol Leaflets by Vendor

3 3.22.8

2.3

3.22.8

3.13.6 3.8

4.7 4.5 4.4

1

2

3

4

5

Easy to read Easy toUnderstand

Useful


P<.001 all tests

Data Vendor by Pharmacy Type

24

9132

64

89

0

25

50

75

100

Independent Chain

Vendor-NA Vendor1-partial Vendor1-full

P<.001

Analysis of Vendor 1 Leaflets

• Analyzed full leaflets used by 16 organizations

• 5 organizations used Version 1 (33 leaflets)



• Compared leaflets with prototypes

Results • Ratings varied by leaflet version

• No prototype fully met criteria

• Some organizations added and deleted information from prototype

Expert Ratings by Leaflet Version

83

34

5951

85

40

6759

54

83

67

48

0

25

50

75

100

1 Name, Ind. 2 Contraind. 3 Directions 4 Precautions

Leaflet V1 Leaflet V2 Leaflet V3

P<.001 all tests

Expert Ratings by Leaflet Version

36 33

96

4744

67

92

4453

29

85

42

0

25

50

75

100

5 ADRs 6 General 7 Accuracy 8 Leg/compreh

Leaflet V1 Leaflet V2 Leaflet V3

P<.001 for all criteria

Additions/Deletions from Prototypes

• V1: One organization deleted publisher and disclaimer information; two used leaflet+label

• V2: One deleted additional information and added label

• V3: Five deleted warning box and overdose sections; four deleted drug names and notes; five added disclaimer; 1 added publisher section

Ratings of Distributed Versus Prototype Leaflets -- Atenolol Version 1

83

34

5851

36 33

9686

29

64

4433

57

100

0

25

50

75

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Criterion

Distributed V1 Prototype V1


85

40

59 59

44

67

9286

50

71

56

33

86

100

0

25

50

75

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Criterion



54

83

67

48 53

29

85

57

8679

61

78

36

100

0

25

50

75

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Criterion


Conclusions (1)

• Highest ratings for scientific accuracy and being nonpromotional

• Lowest ratings for contraindications and precautions

Conclusions (2)

• Lowest ratings for leaflets:- < 5.5 inches long or

- font size < 10 point

• Lowest ratings for leaflets from: - independent pharmacies

- unidentified vendors

Conclusions (3)

• No prototype fully met criteria– Experts, consumers both critical of legibility

• Pharmacy organizations can influence ratings by – selecting vendor and leaflet version – modifying leaflets themselves

Examples

• Leaflets with low versus high ratings

• Leaflets from different vendors

• Changes made by pharmacy organizations or integrators

Evaluation of Written Prescription Information Provided in Community Pharmacies: A National Study Bonnie L. Svarstad, Ph.D. Jeanine K. Mount, Ph.D. and.

Documents

chair slide

analysis slide

madison slide

information items

national study bonnie

pharmacies experts

study design shoppers

useful medication information