ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT01731405Updated Apr 9, 2014

Consumer Understanding and Use of Medication Guides

An observational study in Revised Medication Guide Formats, sponsored by Northwestern University. Completed at 2 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2014-04-09.

Sponsored by Northwestern University · Observational

Study type
Observational
Enrollment
600
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The purpose of this study is to determine the potential efficacy of three revised Medication Guide layouts to increase consumers' comprehension

Read the detailed description

'Medication Guides' (Med Guides) are industry-developed documents that have been required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to be issued to consumers for prescription medications that have been viewed to possess "serious and significant public health concerns" since 1998.1,2 These materials for consumers are intended to 1) provide specific dosing administration instructions that could prevent serious adverse effects associated with taking the medication, 2) warn individuals about significant health risks that could affect one's decision to take the medication, or 3) underscore the importance of taking the prescribed medication to the patient's health, and the need for proper adherence.

Despite their potential value in communicating safe and appropriate medication use, problems are clearly evident with the current template for Med Guides. Research conducted by this team in 2006 showed that the majority, if not all Med Guides dispensed with prescribed medicines are too complex and written at a reading grade level not suitable for the majority of patients to comprehend. As a result, these materials are usually ignored by consumers.3 Further research by this team investigating consumers' ability to process and correctly understand content contained in existing Med Guides found that, across all literacy levels, current Med Guides are poorly understood and ineffective in conveying safety information. Patients with low literacy comprehended significantly less, proving yet again that industry standards must be applied to improve these documents.

It is clear that the current guidance for Medication Guide development is insufficient, and the FDA is working to change that. Both the FDA and this research team have proposed multiple new Medication Guide formats, most of which are one-page cover sheets that highlight the most important information of the medication. To examine these new prototypes, this research team conducted six focus groups to obtain consumer-based feedback, and then evaluated three of the prototypes in an eye tracking study. Using the collective data from these two consumer-based studies, the investigators have further developed patient-centered and evidence-based Med Guide prototypes that will be more user-friendly, clear, usable, and low literacy appropriate.

In a cross-sectional, controlled trial, the investigators will investigate consumers' ability to process and correctly understand content contained in each of these top three new, redesigned prototypes.

The purpose of this research is to better understand how well people with varying levels of literacy understand information contained in three newly designed Med Guides. Through an in-person interview, the investigators aim to test consumers' ability to comprehend information contained in the guides by asking them retrieval and inference questions over the guides' content. This will allow us to compare the three formats against each other to see which prototype is most efficient in conveying the important information it is intended to convey. The investigators will recruit a total of 600 participants from general internal medicine clinics here in Chicago (Northwestern clinic = 300 participants and University of Illinois Chicago = 300 participants. A UIC RA will be responsible for this recruitment and will submit their own IRB for review).

This trial will field test our enhanced prototypes and allow us to compare them to each other, showing which format is best understood, especially in participants with low literacy.

02

Conditions studied

  • Revised Medication Guide Formats

Keywords

  • Medication Guides
  • FDA
  • Prototype
  • Format
03

In context

Lead sponsor

Northwestern University is the lead sponsor of 1,420 studies on the registry; 199 are open to participants now.

Of its 103 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 75 (73%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes
Sampling method
Probability sample

Study population

We are recruiting from 2 primary care clinics.

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • 18 years or older
  • English speaking
  • Physically in the primary care clinic

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Under 18 years old
  • Non-English speaking
  • An uncorrectable hearing or a visual impairment which would hinder participants' ability to view the materials
  • Too ill to participate
  • Moderate to severe cognitive impairments
05

Study design

Enrollment
600 participants (actual)

Groups and cohorts

  • Formats A,B,C; medicines Ritalin, Morphine Sulfate, Aranesp

    All patients will see all 3 different formats of the Medication Guide prototypes. They will also see information for the same drugs, in the same order - Ritalin, Morphine Sulfate, and Aranesp. All participants see all the formats, the only thing that changes by participant is which format is in each medication. There will be 6 different randomized orders - A,B,C; A,C,B; B,C,A; B,A,C; C,A,B; C,B,A. So for example, A,B,C participants would see Ritalin in format A, Morphine Sulfate in format B, and Aranesp in format C.

  • There is not another group
06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Functional Understanding and Comprehension

    The primary outcome is to measure which of the three different formats of Medication Guides has the best participant comprehension, which we will assess based on total correct points out of total possible points.

    Time frame: 30 minute interview

Secondary outcomes

  1. Health Literacy (REALM)

    The REALM (Rapid Estimate of Adult Health Literacy in Medicine) is a word recognition test designed to provide a valid and quick assessment of participant health literacy.

    Time frame: 30 minutes

  2. Participant Characteristics

    Basic demographic characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity), socioeconomic information (education, household income), health status information (self-reported overall health), and recent medication use will be collected by self report.

    Time frame: 30 minutes

07

Study locations

2 sites
  • Northwestern Medical Faculty Foundation
    Chicago, Illinois 60611, United States
  • Primary Care Plus
    Chicago, Illinois 60636, United States
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Tsfasman IM, Starovoitov II, Ziakun AM, Skriabin GK. [Study of the initial reaction of enzymatic oxidation of 1,8-dimethylnaphthalene]. Biokhimiia. 1976 May;41(5):864-8. Russian. PubMed 15641 ↗
  • Wolf MS, King J, Wilson EA, Curtis LM, Bailey SC, Duhig J, Russell A, Bergeron A, Daly A, Parker RM, Davis TC, Shrank WH, Lambert B. Usability of FDA-approved medication guides. J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Dec;27(12):1714-20. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2068-7. Epub 2012 May 8. PubMed 22566170 ↗
  • Wallace LS, Roskos SE, Weiss BD. Readability characteristics of consumer medication information for asthma inhalation devices. J Asthma. 2006 Jun-Jul;43(5):375-8. doi: 10.1080/02770900600709856. PubMed 16801142 ↗
  • Safonova TIa, Shelkovskii VI. [Nicotinamide coenzyme level in erythrocytes in children with cerebral paralysis]. Pediatriia. 1977 May;(5):71-3. No abstract available. Russian. PubMed 17846 ↗
  • Bull C, Goncher G, Deutschman CS, Hoffman BM. Source of residual Bohr effect in hemoglobin oxidation. J Biol Chem. 1977 May 25;252(10):3128-30. PubMed 16881 ↗
  • Wolf MS, Bailey SC, Serper M, Smith M, Davis TC, Russell AL, Manzoor BS, Belter L, Parker RM, Lambert B. Comparative effectiveness of patient-centered strategies to improve FDA medication guides. Med Care. 2014 Sep;52(9):781-9. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000182. PubMed 25119953 ↗
09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Apr 9, 2014, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT01731405
Collaborators
Abbott
Responsible party
Michael S. Wolf (Associate Professor, Northwestern University) — Principal investigator
First posted
Nov 21, 2012
Start date
Nov 2012
Primary completion
Mar 2013
Completion
Feb 2014
Last update
Apr 9, 2014

Study contacts

Michael S Wolf, PhD MPH
principal investigator · Northwestern University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Apr 2014. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion