Readability Testing as a Tool to Assess the Understanding of Medical Terms Used in Package Leaflets

INTRODUCTION. The information that is intended for a patient and included in the package leaflet for a medicinal product should ensure the effective and safe use of the medicinal product through appropriate explanations. However, the appropriate level of detail and the necessity of defining each medical term are not clear.

AIM. This study aimed to test how respondents without medical education, potentially representative of the general patient population, understand medical terms randomly selected from approved package leaflets for medicinal products authorised in the Russian Federation, as well as to conduct a statistical analysis of the relationships between the respondents’ demographics and test results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. A Google Forms-based comprehension test evaluated the understanding of 11 random terms from approved package leaflets for medicinal products authorised in the Russian Federation. The statistical analysis of comprehension included data from 63 respondents. The study collected the respondents’ demographic characteristics, including their level of education and age.

RESULTS. The respondents overestimated their comprehension of medical terms, giving incorrect definitions to some terms that they previously deemed to be comprehensible. Overall, the respondents provided correct definitions for less than 80% of the terms tested. The most comprehensible terms were “rhinitis” (66.07%), “angioedema” (28.57%), “exanthema” (25.00%), and “anuria” (25.00%). Those who had a higher education or worked with documents were more likely to define the terms correctly.

CONCLUSIONS. Package leaflets containing medical terms, regardless of how frequently these terms are used outside of healthcare settings, should be designed taking into account the heterogeneity of the target audience due to, among other things, differences in education. The terms that cause the greatest difficulty in user testing should be further explained or replaced with more understandable synonyms.

1. Tong V, Aslani P, Raynor DK, Shipp D, Parkinson B, Lalor D, et al. Developing and user testing new pharmacy label formats — a study to inform labelling standards. Health Expect. 2021;24(4):1125–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13203

2. Ancker JS, Grossman LV, Benda NC. Health literacy 2030: Is it time to redefine the term? J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(8):2427–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05472-y

3. Dickinson D, Raynor DK, Duman M. Patient information leaflets for medicines: Using consumer testing to determine the most effective design. Patient Educ Couns. 2001;43(2):147–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0738-3991(00)00156-7

4. Sless D. Designing documents for people to use. Melbourne: Communication Research Institute; 1996.

5. Fuchs J. Design science with a focus on user-centred evaluation of written information. In: Bahri P, ed. Communicating about risks and safe use of medicines. Adis Singapore; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3013-5_12

6. Okan Y, Petrova D, Smith SG, Lesic V, Bruine de Bruin W. How do women interpret the NHS information leaflet about cervical cancer screening? Med Decis Making. 2019;39(7):738–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X19873647

7. Munksgaard SB, Allena M, Tassorelli C, Rossi P, Katsarava Z, Bendtsen L, et al. What do the patients with medication overuse headache expect from treatment and what are the preferred sources of information? J Headache Pain. 2011;12(1):91–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10194-011-0298-4

8. Tong V, Raynor DK, Aslani P. Design and comprehensibility of over-the-counter product labels and leaflets: A narrative review. Int J Clin Pharm. 2014;36(5):865–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-014-9975-0

9. Pelizzari N. The challenges for EU user testing policies for patient information leaflets. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024;21(10):1301. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21101301