Cargando…

European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) summaries for the public: are they fit for purpose? A user-testing study

OBJECTIVES: Apply ‘user testing’ methodology to test the readability of a European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) summary—which describes how the decision was made by the European Medicines Agency to approve a medicine. DESIGN: User testing uses mixed methods (questionnaire and semistructured inter...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Raynor, David K, Bryant, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780304/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24048625
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003185
_version_ 1782285289023078400
author Raynor, David K
Bryant, David
author_facet Raynor, David K
Bryant, David
author_sort Raynor, David K
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Apply ‘user testing’ methodology to test the readability of a European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) summary—which describes how the decision was made by the European Medicines Agency to approve a medicine. DESIGN: User testing uses mixed methods (questionnaire and semistructured interview), applied iteratively, to assess document performance—can people find and understand key points of information. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Testing was undertaken with 40 members of the public in four consecutive rounds of 10. Inclusion criteria, matched across rounds, included range of ages and educational attainment. TESTED DOCUMENTS: In round 1 we tested 19 key points of information in a printed version of the EPAR summary for Bondronat (a cancer medicine). This was then revised to address the findings, and tested in round 2. In round 3 we tested the summary on-screen, and in round 4, tested a revised on-screen version, after addressing findings from both rounds 1 and 3. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: The target followed European guidance for medicine leaflets: for each point of information 90% of participants should be able to find, and of those, 90% able to show understanding of the point. RESULTS: For the original EPAR summary, 6 of the 19 points of information reached the target (both paper-based and on-screen). After revisions to format and content, using good practice in information writing and design, 14 and 16 points, respectively, met the target. The problems related to both finding (dependent on layout, headings and design) and understanding (words and sentences used, as well as design). We devised a new heading structure, increased use of bullet points, replaced difficult and technical words and divided long sentences. CONCLUSIONS: People had difficulty finding and understanding key messages in the summary, but user testing identified the problems, and application of good practice resulted in a revised format which performed well.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3780304
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37803042013-09-30 European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) summaries for the public: are they fit for purpose? A user-testing study Raynor, David K Bryant, David BMJ Open Communication OBJECTIVES: Apply ‘user testing’ methodology to test the readability of a European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) summary—which describes how the decision was made by the European Medicines Agency to approve a medicine. DESIGN: User testing uses mixed methods (questionnaire and semistructured interview), applied iteratively, to assess document performance—can people find and understand key points of information. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Testing was undertaken with 40 members of the public in four consecutive rounds of 10. Inclusion criteria, matched across rounds, included range of ages and educational attainment. TESTED DOCUMENTS: In round 1 we tested 19 key points of information in a printed version of the EPAR summary for Bondronat (a cancer medicine). This was then revised to address the findings, and tested in round 2. In round 3 we tested the summary on-screen, and in round 4, tested a revised on-screen version, after addressing findings from both rounds 1 and 3. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: The target followed European guidance for medicine leaflets: for each point of information 90% of participants should be able to find, and of those, 90% able to show understanding of the point. RESULTS: For the original EPAR summary, 6 of the 19 points of information reached the target (both paper-based and on-screen). After revisions to format and content, using good practice in information writing and design, 14 and 16 points, respectively, met the target. The problems related to both finding (dependent on layout, headings and design) and understanding (words and sentences used, as well as design). We devised a new heading structure, increased use of bullet points, replaced difficult and technical words and divided long sentences. CONCLUSIONS: People had difficulty finding and understanding key messages in the summary, but user testing identified the problems, and application of good practice resulted in a revised format which performed well. BMJ Publishing Group 2013-09-17 /pmc/articles/PMC3780304/ /pubmed/24048625 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003185 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
spellingShingle Communication
Raynor, David K
Bryant, David
European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) summaries for the public: are they fit for purpose? A user-testing study
title European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) summaries for the public: are they fit for purpose? A user-testing study
title_full European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) summaries for the public: are they fit for purpose? A user-testing study
title_fullStr European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) summaries for the public: are they fit for purpose? A user-testing study
title_full_unstemmed European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) summaries for the public: are they fit for purpose? A user-testing study
title_short European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) summaries for the public: are they fit for purpose? A user-testing study
title_sort european public assessment report (epar) summaries for the public: are they fit for purpose? a user-testing study
topic Communication
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780304/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24048625
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003185
work_keys_str_mv AT raynordavidk europeanpublicassessmentreporteparsummariesforthepublicaretheyfitforpurposeausertestingstudy
AT bryantdavid europeanpublicassessmentreporteparsummariesforthepublicaretheyfitforpurposeausertestingstudy