Using change detection to objectively evaluate whether novel over-the-counter drug labels can increase attention to critical health information among older adults

Alyssa L Harben, Deborah A Kashy, Shiva Esfahanian, Lanqing Liu, Laura Bix, Mark W Becker, Alyssa L Harben, Deborah A Kashy, Shiva Esfahanian, Lanqing Liu, Laura Bix, Mark W Becker

Abstract

Over-the-counter (OTC) drugs have many benefits but also carry risks, such as adverse drug reactions, which are more prevalent in older adults. Because these products do not require the oversight of a physician or pharmacist, labeling plays a key role in communicating information required for their safe and effective use. Research suggests that current labels are not terribly effective at communicating potential risk. One reason for their lack of effectiveness is that few consumers attend to critical information (active ingredients and warnings) when making purchases. In two experiments, we used a change detection task to objectively evaluate how novel label designs that employ highlighting and a warning label placed on the package's front impact attention to critical information among older participants (65 and older). The change detection task is a unique form of visual search which allowed us to assess the attentional priority of critical information among participants who were not explicitly instructed to search for this critical information. This unique aspect of the task is important given research suggesting that consumers rarely have the explicit goal of seeking out warnings and active ingredients when making OTC selections. Our results provide empirical support that both highlighting critical information and positioning it on the package's front increase its attentional prioritization relative to current, commercial practice. Given that attending to the critical information is prerequisite to utilizing that information, strategies that elicit attention in this way are likely to reduce medication errors.

Conflict of interest statement

LB has served as a consultant to Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biotech firm focused on drugs to treat cystic fibrosis, providing expertise on the development of protocols to evaluate packaging ease of use. LB has received an honorarium and travel reimbursement to speak at Baxter and Johnson & Johnson Companies and travel reimbursement to share work from her group at the International Quality and Productivity Center’s conference on Pharmaceutical Labeling. Travel reimbursement has also been provided by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in support of her participation for ongoing efforts medication safety. LL’s work which also investigated OTC labeling strategies, was funded by the Consumer Healthcare Products Association (CHPA) and MWB and LB were co-PIs for these funds. None of these entities played any role in the design or conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis or interpretation of the date; preparation, review or approval of the manuscript or the decision to submit or publish the study.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
An example of one of the mock brands. For illustrative purposes, the principle display panel (PDP) and Drug Facts Label are labeled in red and the front warning label and active ingredients are labeled in blue. The actual stimulus did not show these colored labels, arrows, and circle
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Examples of the four label treatments
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Examples of the eight active ingredient changes. The left column depicts the complete label for the 4 label treatments. The middle depicts the altered images with a change to the PDP. The right depicts the altered images with a change to the active ingredient in the Drug Facts Label. The red squares in the top row are to illustrate the change location and did not appear
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Examples of the six warning changes for a given brand. The left column depicts the complete label for the 4 label treatments. The middle depicts the altered images with a change to the Drug Facts Label. The right depicts the altered images with a change to the front warning label. The red squares in the top row are to illustrate the change location and did not appear in the experiment
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
a Presents the mean reaction time for changes to active ingredients by condition for Experiment 1. b The corresponding mean accuracy data. c, d Present the mean reaction time and accuracy data for changes to active ingredients by condition for Experiment 2. For accuracy the values are the estimated marginal means. For reaction time, rather than present the log transformed data that was used for the analyses, for illustrative purposes we present the means of the raw data. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
a The mean reaction time for changes to warnings by condition for Experiment 1. b The corresponding mean accuracy data. c, d present the mean reaction time and accuracy data for changes to warnings by condition for Experiment 2. For accuracy the values are the estimated marginal means. For reaction time, rather than present the log transformed data that was used for the analyses, for illustrative purposes we present the means of the raw data. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean

References

    1. Asseray N, Ballereau F, Trombert-Paviot B, Bouget J, Foucher N, Renaud B, Roulet L, Kierzek G, Armand-Perroux A, Potel G, Schmidt J, Carpentier F, Queneau P. Frequency and severity of adverse drug reactions due to self-medication: A cross-sectional multicentre survey in emergency departments. Drug Safety. 2013;36:1159–1168. doi: 10.1007/s40264-013-0114-y.
    1. Awh E, Belopolsky AV, Theeuwes J. Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: A failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2012;16(8):437–443. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.010.
    1. Bass PF, Wilson JF, Griffith CH. A shortened instrument for literacy screening. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2003;18:1036–1038. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2003.10651.x.
    1. Becker MW, Bello NM, Sundar RP, Peltier C, Bix L. Front of pack labels enhance attention to nutrition information in novel and commercial brands. Food Policy. 2015;56:76–86. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.08.001.
    1. Biggs AT, Mitroff SR. Improving the efficacy of security screening tasks: A review of visual search challenges and ways to mitigate their adverse effects. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2014;29:142–148. doi: 10.1002/acp.3083.
    1. Bix L, Sundar RP, Bello NM, Peltier C, Weatherspoon LJ, Becker MW. To see or not to see: Do front of pack nutrition labels affect attention to overall nutrition information? PLoS ONE. 2015 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139732.
    1. Borgmeier I, Westenhoefer J. Impact of different food label formats on healthiness evaluation and food choice of consumers: A randomized-controlled study. BMC Public Health. 2009 doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-184.
    1. Bourgeois FT, Shannon MW, Valim C, Mandl KD. Adverse drug events in the outpatient setting: An 11-year national analysis. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety. 2010;19:901–910. doi: 10.1002/pds.1984.
    1. Costello MC, Madden DJ, Mitroff SR, Whiting WL. Age-related decline of visual processing components in change detection. Psychology and Aging. 2010;25(2):356–368. doi: 10.1037/a0017625.
    1. Davies EA, O’Mahony MS. Adverse drug reactions in special populations—The elderly. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 2015;80(4):796–807. doi: 10.1111/bcp.12596.
    1. Davis TC, Wolf MS, Bass PF, Middlebrooks M, Kennen E, Baker DW, Bennett CL, Durazo-Arvizu R, Bocchini A, Savory S, Parker RM. Low literacy impairs comprehension of prescription drug warning labels. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2006;21(8):847–851. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00529.x.
    1. DeHenau C, Becker MW, Bello NM, Liu S, Bix L. Tallman lettering as a strategy for differentiation in look-alike, sound-alike drug names: The role of familiarity in differentiating drug doppelgangers. Applied Ergonomics. 2016;52:77–84. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2015.06.009.
    1. Dunlosky J, Rawson KA, Marsh EJ, Nathan MJ, Willingham DT. Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Supplement. 2013;14(1):4–58. doi: 10.1177/1529100612453266.
    1. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods. 2007;39(2):175–191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146.
    1. Geng JJ, Behrmann M. Spatial probability as an attentional cue in visual search. Perception and Psychophysics. 2005;67(7):1252–1268. doi: 10.3758/BF03193557.
    1. Graham DJ, Heidrick C, Hodgin K. Nutrition label viewing during a food-selection task: Front-of-package labels vs nutrition facts labels. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. 2015;115(10):1636–1646. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2015.02.019.
    1. Guthrie B, Makubate B, Hernandez-Santiago V, Dreischulte T. The rising tide of polypharmacy and drug-drug interactions: Population database analysis 1995–2010. BMC Medicine. 2015 doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0322-7.
    1. Hammond D, Fong GT, McNeill A, Borland R, Cummings KM. Effectiveness of cigarette warning labels in informing smokers about the risks of smoking: Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Tobacco Control. 2006;15(SUPPL. 3):19–25. doi: 10.1136/tc.2005.012294.
    1. Hersey JC, Wohlgenant KC, Arsenault JE, Kosa KM, Muth MK. Effects of front-of-package and shelf nutrition labeling systems on consumers. Nutrition Reviews. 2013;71(1):1–14. doi: 10.1111/nure.12000.
    1. Hoffman L, Atchley P, McDowd JM, Dubinsky R. The role of visual attention in predicting driving impairment in older adults. Psychology and Aging. 2005;20(4):610–622. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.20.4.610.
    1. Jones BT, Jones BC, Smith H, Copley N. A flicker paradigm for inducing change blindness reveals alcohol and cannabis information processing biases in social users. Addiction. 2003;98(2):235–244. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2003.00270.x.
    1. Jones G, Richardson M. An objective examination of consumer perception of nutrition information based on healthiness ratings and eye movements. Public Health Nutrition. 2007;10(3):238–244. doi: 10.1017/S1368980007258513.
    1. Kanter R, Vanderlee L, Vandevijvere S. Front-of-package nutrition labelling policy: Global progress and future directions. Public Health Nutrition. 2018;21(8):1399–1408. doi: 10.1017/S1368980018000010.
    1. Katzman, R., Brown, T., Fuld, P., Peck, A., Schechter, R. & Schimmel, H. (1983). Validation of a short orientation-memory-concentration test of cognitive impairment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 140(6), 734–739.
    1. Kelly B, Hughes C, Chapman K, Chun-Yu Louie J, Dixon H, Crawford J, King L, Daube M, Slevin T. Consumer testing of the acceptability and effectiveness of front-of-pack food labelling systems for the Australian grocery market. Health Promotion International. 2009;24(2):120–129. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dap012.
    1. King JP, Davis TC, Bailey SC, Jacobson KL, Hedlund LA, Di Francesco L, Parker RM, Wolf MS. Developing consumer-centered, nonprescription drug labeling: A study in acetaminophen. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2011;40(6):593–598. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.02.016.
    1. Kobayashi LC, Wardle J, Wolf MS, Von Wagner C. Aging and functional health literacy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journals of Gerontology—Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2016;71(3):445–457. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbu161.
    1. Labeling Requirements for Over-the-Counter Drugs. (2020). 21 C.F.R.§ 201.60.
    1. Lavan AH, Gallagher P. Predicting risk of adverse drug reactions in older adults. Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety. 2016;7(1):11–22. doi: 10.1177/2042098615615472.
    1. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998;279(15):1200–1205. doi: 10.1001/jama.279.15.1200.
    1. Lee J, Ladoni M, Richardson J, Sundar RP, Bix L. Investigating the efficacy of an interactive warning for use in labeling strategies used by us pharmacies. Pharmacy Practice. 2019;17(2):1–13. doi: 10.18549/PharmPract.2019.2.1463.
    1. Levin DT, Momen N, Drivdahl SB, Simons DJ. Change blindness blindness: The metacognitive error of overestimating change-detection ability. Visual Cognition. 2000;7(1–3):397–412. doi: 10.1080/135062800394865.
    1. Levy DE, Riis J, Sonnenberg LM, Barraclough SJ, Thorndike AN. Food choices of minority and low-income employees: A cafeteria intervention. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2012;43(3):240–248. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.05.004.
    1. Liu L. The effect of labeling content and prominence on information processing among older adults during self-selection of over-the-counter medications. Michigan State University; 2016.
    1. Luck SJ, Vogel EK. The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjuctions. Nature. 1997;390:279–281. doi: 10.1038/36846.
    1. Mack A. Inattentional blindness: Looking without seeing. Association for Psychological Science. 2003;12(5):180–184. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/3707.001.0001.
    1. Martin-Hammond AM, Abegaz T, Gilbert JE. Designing an over-the-counter consumer decision-making tool for older adults. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2015;57:113–123. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2015.07.006.
    1. McCarley JS, Vais MJ, Pringle H, Kramer AF, Irwin DE, Strayer DL. Conversation disrupts change detection in complex traffic scenes. Human Factors. 2004;46(3):424–436. doi: 10.1518/hfes.46.3.424.50394.
    1. McConkie GW, Zola D. Is visual information integrated across successive fixations in reading? Perception & Psychophysics. 1979;25(3):221–224. doi: 10.3758/BF03202990.
    1. McNeil Consumer Healthcare. (2015). Americans Should Pay More Attention to Over-the-Counter ( OTC ) Medicine Labels According to New Survey. .
    1. Miller J. Components of the location probability effect in visual search tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1988;14(3):453–471. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.14.3.453.
    1. Mitroff SR, Biggs AT, Cain MS. Multiple-target visual search errors: Overview and implications for airport security. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2015;2(1):121–128. doi: 10.1177/2372732215601111.
    1. Morales AC, Amir O, Lee L. Keeping it real in experimental research-understanding when, where, and how to enhance realism and measure consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research. 2017;44(2):465–476. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucx048.
    1. Murty S, Sansgiry SS. Consumer comprehension of OTC medication labels and the scope for improvement in font size. Journal of Pharmacy Technology. 2007;23:207–213. doi: 10.1177/875512250702300404.
    1. Nair NP, Chalmers L, Peterson GM, Bereznicki BJ, Castelino RL, Bereznicki LR. Hospitalization in older patients due to adverse drug reactions—The need for a prediction tool. Clinical Interventions in Aging. 2016;11:497–505. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S99097.
    1. Nisbett RE, Wilson TD. Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review. 1977;84(3):231–259. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231.
    1. O’Connor MN, Gallagher P, Byrne S, O’Mahony D. Adverse drug reactions in older patients during hospitalisation: Are they predictable? Age and Ageing. 2012;41:771–776. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afs046.
    1. Pringle HL, Irwin DE, Kramer AF, Atchley P. The role of attentional breadth in perceptual change detection. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. 2001;8(1):89–95. doi: 10.3758/BF03196143.
    1. Qato DM, Wilder J, Schumm LP, Gillet V, Alexander GC. Changes in prescription and over-the-counter medication and dietary supplement use among older adults in the United States, 2005 vs 2011. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2016;176(4):473–482. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.8581.
    1. Rensink RA, O’Regan JK, Clark JJ. TO SEE OR NOT TO SEE: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. American Psychological Society. 1997;8(5):368–373.
    1. Roberto CA, Bragg MA, Seamans MJ, Mechulan RL, Novak N, Brownell KD. Evaluation of consumer understanding of different front-of-package nutrition labels, 2010–2011. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2012;9:2010–2011. doi: 10.5888/pcd9.120015.
    1. Schmiedl S, Rottenkolber M, Hasford J, Rottenkolber D, Farker K, Drewelow B, Hippius M, Saljé K, Thürmann P. Self-medication with over-the-counter and prescribed drugs causing adverse-drug-reaction-related hospital admissions: Results of a prospective, long-term multi-centre study. Drug Safety. 2014;37:225–235. doi: 10.1007/s40264-014-0141-3.
    1. Schneider W, Shiffrin RM. Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review. 1977;84(1):1–66. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.1.1.
    1. Seo DC. Assessing the effect of varied design elements on information processing in medical device labels. Michigan State University; 2014.
    1. Simons DJ, Chabris CF. Gorilla in Our Midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception. 1999 doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0798-28.
    1. Simons DJ, Rensink RA. Change blindness: Past, present, and future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2005;9(1):16–20. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.11.006.
    1. Specific Labeling Requirements for Specific Drug Products (2020). 21 C.F.R.§ 201.326
    1. Stirk JA, Underwood G. Low-level visual saliency does not predict change detection in natural scenes. Journal of Vision. 2007;7(10):1–10. doi: 10.1167/7.10.3.
    1. Taylor J. Reasons consumers do not ask for advice on non-prescription medicines in pharmacies. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice. 1994;2:209–214. doi: 10.1111/j.2042-7174.1994.tb00765.x.
    1. The Acetaminophen Hepatotoxicity Working Group. (2008). Reccomendations for FDA interventions to decrease the occurance of acetaminophen hepatotoxicity. In Center for drug evaluation and research. › files › 2011/12
    1. Thorndike AN, Riis J, Sonnenberg LM, Levy DE. Traffic-light labels and choice architecture: Promoting healthy food choices. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2014;46(2):143–149. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.10.002.
    1. Thorndike AN, Sonnenberg L, Riis J, Barraclough S, Levy DE. A 2-phase labeling and choice architecture intervention to improve healthy food and beverage choices. American Journal of Public Health. 2012;102(3):527–533. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300391.
    1. Tong V, Raynor DK, Aslani P. Design and comprehensibility of over-the-counter product labels and leaflets: a narrative review. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy. 2014;36:865–872. doi: 10.1007/s11096-014-9975-0.
    1. Tong V, Raynor DK, Aslani P. ‘It’s all there in black and white’ – or is it? Consumer perspectives on the proposed Australian Medicine Information Box over-the-counter label format. Health Expectations. 2015;19:948–961. doi: 10.1111/hex.12389.
    1. Tong V, Raynor DK, Aslani P. Developing alternative over-the-counter medicine label formats: How do they compare when evaluated by consumers? Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy. 2017 doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2017.03.003.
    1. Tong V, Raynor DK, Hamrosi KK, Panchal N, Aslani P. Consumer opinions on existing and proposed Australian over-the-counter medicine labeling strategies in comparison with the standardized US drug facts label. Therapuetic Innovation and Regulatory Science. 2016;50(4):427–435. doi: 10.1177/2168479016628301.
    1. Treisman AM, Gelade G. A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology. 1980;12:97–136. doi: 10.1097/00075198-199608000-00002.
    1. Van Herpen E, Van Trijp HC. Front-of-pack nutrition labels. Their effect on attention and choices when consumers have varying goals and time constraints. Appetite. 2011;57(1):148–160. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.04.011.
    1. Veiel LL, Storandt M, Abrams RA. Visual search for change in older adults. Psychology and Aging. 2006;21(4):754–762. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.21.4.754.
    1. Wawruch M, Kuzelova M, Foltanova T, Ondriasova E, Luha J, Dukat A, Murin J, Shah R. Characteristics of elderly patients who consider over-the-counter medications as safe. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy. 2013;35:121–128. doi: 10.1007/s11096-012-9718-z.
    1. Wolfe JM. Guided Search 2.0 A revised model of visual search. Psychnomic Bulletin & Review. 1994;1(2):202–238. doi: 10.3758/BF03200774.
    1. Wolfe JM, Alaoui Soce A, Schill HM. How did I miss that? Developing mixed hybrid visual search as a ‘model system’ for incidental finding errors in radiology. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications. 2017 doi: 10.1186/s41235-017-0072-5.
    1. Wolfe JM, Evans KK, Drew T, Aizenman A, Josephs E. How do radiologists use the human search engine? Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2016;169(1–4):24–31. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncv501.
    1. Wu C, Bell CM, Wodchis WP. Incidence and economic burden of adverse drug reactions among elderly patients in Ontario emergency departments: A retrospective study. Drug Safety. 2012;35(9):769–781. doi: 10.2165/11599540-000000000-00000.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner