Abstracts

Rationale: To assess the utilization and perception of PILs accompanying pharmacy-dispensed prescriptions. Methods: Over a two-week period, Epilepsy Advocate (EA) Facebook followers were invited to complete a survey about medical information gathering habits and to assess acceptance and recognition of general pictogram images. The survey appeared as a link on the timeline of the Facebook page. Respondents reported their awareness, utilization and perception of the PIL as well as their interpretation and perceived functionality of the addition of a pictogram. Results were analyzed based on completed survey questions and summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: Two hundred eighty-one respondents completed at least one question of the six-item survey; reported results are based on number of respondents per question and may vary. Fifty-eight (20.8%; n=279) respondents reported that they do not read any parts of the PIL. Respondents that reported that they do not read any parts (n=58) or that they only read specific parts of the PIL (n=112) indicated that their reasons for not reading fell into two major buckets; respondents could list multiple reasons. Of 152 respondents, 168 responses were collected. Sixty-two (36.9%) responses indicated they do not read the PIL because the “writing is too small” or “it’s too complicated”. Another 65 (38.7%) responses indicated they do not read the PIL because “my doctor/pharmacist already explained it” or “I already know the important information”. A pictogram was included in the survey to gauge the respondents’ comprehension and potential utilization if the image were included in the PIL. The majority (71.4%; n=231) of respondents could correctly interpret the meaning of the pictogram. Of the 170 respondents that indicated they do not read any parts of the PIL or that they only read specific parts, 117 (83.6%; n=140) indicated that the pictogram would be helpful in medical information comprehension and 109 (78.4%; n=139) indicated that if the pictogram was included in their PIL, they would read it. Conclusions: A majority (76.3%) of those surveyed on the EA Facebook page either read the entire PIL or some parts of it. Study findings suggest that of those that don’t read the PIL, greater than one-third are not reading it due to small writing or complicated text. The survey also suggests that there is an opportunity to engage and educate patients using pictograms. Of those surveyed, pictograms were found to be useful in conveying pertinent medical information and to entice the respondents to read their PIL. A possible limitation of the study is the generalizability of the results. The study population is comprised of followers of a disease state-specific social media site; respondents represent a subpopulation of people already engaged in the epilepsy community. Further evaluation is needed to determine if healthcare professionals that provide medication counseling would find utility in a different PIL format. Funding: UCB Pharma sponsored.