MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890384679 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v71i4.2827

Validation of Pictograms for Safer Handling of Medications: Comprehension and Recall among Pharmacy Students

2018· article· en· W2890384679 on OpenAlex
Régis Vaillancourt, Christina Khoury, Annie Pouliot

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSafety Warnings and Signage
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsPictogramRecallComprehensionPharmacyMedicineMeaning (existential)PsychologyFamily medicineLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>ABSTRACT</p><p><strong>Background</strong>: Medication preparation and administration are higher-risk steps in the medication management process. Therefore, medication management strategies, such as warnings and education about medication safety, are essential in preventing errors and improving the safe handling of medications by health care workers.</p><p><strong>Objectives</strong>: To validate comprehension of 9 pictograms designed to improve medication safety, and to assess long term recall of these pictograms in a sample of pharmacy students.</p><p><strong>Methods</strong>: First- and second-year pharmacy students were recruited as participants. The study was divided into 2 phases: comprehension (Phase 1) and long-term recall (Phase 2). In Phase 1, a slideshow of the 9 pictograms was presented to participants, who were asked to write the meaning of and required action for each pictogram. The intended meaning of each pictogram was then presented to the participants. Four weeks later, long-term recall was assessed in Phase 2 of the study using the same method. The meaning and required action that participants provided for each pictogram were reviewed by 3 independent raters. A pictogram was considered to be validated in the pharmacy student population if at least 67% of participants identified the correct meaning or required action during the recall phase.</p><p><strong>Results</strong>: A total of 101 pharmacy students participated in Phase 1 and 67 in Phase 2. In Phase 1, 4 pictograms met the 67% threshold for comprehension. In Phase 2, after training, 7 of the 9 pictograms were validated.</p><p><strong>Conclusions</strong>: Given the results obtained with pharmacy students, redesign may be necessary for 2 of the pictograms. The use of validated medication safety pictograms on medication labels and other identifiers may prevent errors during medication handling and administration; this is an important avenue of investigation for future studies.</p><p>RÉSUMÉ</p><p><strong>Contexte</strong> : La préparation et l’administration des médicaments sont des étapes à risque plus élevé dans le processus de gestion des médicaments. Or, les stratégies de gestion des médicaments, dont les mises en garde et les informations sur la sécurité des médicaments, sont essentielles à la prévention des erreurs et à une manipulation plus sécuritaire des médicaments par les travailleurs de la santé.</p><p><strong>Objectifs</strong> : Valider la compréhension de neuf pictogrammes conçus pour accroître la sécurité des médicaments et vérifier si ces pictogrammes s’inscrivent dans la mémoire à long terme des étudiants en pharmacie.</p><p><strong>Méthodes</strong> :<strong> </strong>On a recruté des participants auprès des étudiants de première et de deuxième année en pharmacie. L’étude était composée de deux phases : compréhension (phase 1) et mémoire à long terme (phase 2). Dans la phase 1, un diaporama de neuf pictogrammes a été présenté aux participants à qui l’on a demandé d’interpréter chaque pictogramme et la mesure qu’il impose. On a ensuite présenté aux participants la signification qu’on voulait donner à chaque pictogramme. Quatre semaines plus tard durant la phase 2, un test de mémoire à long terme employant la méthode de la phase 1 a été effectué. Les réponses des participants quant à la signification et à la mesure à prendre pour chaque pictogramme ont été analysées par trois évaluateurs indépendants. Un pictogramme était considéré comme validé dans la population des étudiants en pharmacie si un minimum de 67 % des participants se souvenait de la signification adéquate et de la mesure à prendre recherchée pendant la phase de test de mémoire à long terme.</p><p><strong>Résultats</strong> : Au total, 101 étudiants en pharmacie ont participé à la phase 1 et 67 à la phase 2. Dans la phase 1, quatre pictogrammes ont atteint le seuil de 67 % pour la compréhension. Dans la phase 2, après une formation, 7 pictogrammes sur 9 ont été validés.</p><p><strong>Conclusions</strong> : Compte tenu des résultats obtenus auprès des étudiants en pharmacie, deux des pictogrammes pourraient être appelés à retourner à la planche à dessin. L’ajout de pictogrammes validés de sécurité des médicaments sur les étiquettes et autres marques d’identification de médicaments pourrait éviter des erreurs pendant la manipulation et l’administration de médicaments. Il s’agit là d’une piste de recherche importante pour de futures études.<br /><br /></p><p> </p>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it