Exploratory evaluation of several teratogen warning symbols.
Exploratory evaluation of several teratogen warning symbols.
复制标题
几个致畸警告符号的探索性评估。
DOI：
10.1002/bdra.20813
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Kaplan,Brian
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Goldsworthy,Richard;Kaplan,Brian
背景：以前的研究已经注意到一些致畸药物使用的警告标签和符号的潜在不足。明确的致畸剂警告标志是减轻意外致畸剂暴露风险的重要组成部分。方法：通过快速原型法和焦点小组法，制定若干致畸物警示标志。一项全国分布的现场试验（n= 300）检验了6个候选符号的相对有效性，包括研究时使用的符号。测量方法包括开放式解释、封闭式偏好和人口调查。研究人员向每个参与者展示了一个符号，并询问它的含义，适用于谁，以及那个人应该做什么。文字语句被添加到符号中，参与者被要求重新解释警告。参与者被告知警告的预期信息，显示所有6个符号，并被要求选择最有效的符号。结果：6个符号中有4个达到了接近或超过美国国家标准协会（ANSI）基准85%的正确解释水平，没有一个超过ANSI限制的5%的临界混淆。符号引发了不同的概念反应。受访者认为1个符号最有效，比例为4:1。一些结果因年龄和种族而异。结论：出现了几种符号作为当前符号的可行替代方案；然而，没有一个符号被明确地发现是最有效的。相反，被认为是“最佳”的符号取决于被认为对警告最重要的信息。此外，不添加文字的符号似乎可以传达警告标签所需的大部分含义，但可能不是全部含义。接下来的步骤应该包括进一步的符号细化，更仔细地检查符号的文本添加，并通过大规模的现场试验验证候选符号和警告。出生缺陷研究（A辑）76:453 - 460,2006。©2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc。
BACKGROUND:Previous research has noted potential inadequacies in the warning labels and symbols used with some teratogenic medications. A clear teratogen warning symbol represents an important component of risk mitigation for accidental teratogen exposure.METHODS:Several teratogen warning symbols were developed through rapid prototyping and focus groups. A nationally distributed field trial (n= 300) examined the relative effectiveness of 6 candidate symbols, including the symbol in use at the time of the study. Measures included open‐ended interpretation, closed‐ended preference, and demographic surveys. Each participant was shown a single symbol and asked what it meant, to whom it applied, and what that person should do. Text statements were added to the symbol and participants were asked to reinterpret the warning. Participants were told the intended message of the warning, shown all 6 symbols, and asked to choose the most effective symbol.RESULTS:Four of 6 symbols achieved levels of correct interpretation close to or exceeding the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) benchmark of 85% and none exceeded the ANSI limit of 5% critical confusion. Symbols elicited varying conceptual responses. Respondents considered 1 symbol to be the most effective, by a 4 to 1 margin. Several outcomes varied by age and by ethnicity.CONCLUSIONS:Several symbols emerged as viable alternatives to the current symbol; however, no 1 symbol was clearly found to be the most effective. Instead, the symbol considered “best” depends on the messages that are considered most essential to the warning. Additionally, it appears a symbol without the addition of text can convey most, but possibly not all, of the meaning required of the warning label. Next steps should include further symbol refinement, closer examination of text additions to symbols, and validation of the candidate symbols and warnings through a large‐scale field trial. Birth Defects Research (Part A) 76:453–460, 2006. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.