Table 2 Summary of studies: label design recommendations
Recommendations | Study |
|---|---|
PCL: (plain language, simplified/explicit text) | - You 2011 [22], comparative study, N = 132 - McCarthy 2013 [23], RCT, N = 87 - Sahm 2012 [24], cross-sectional study, N = 94 - Davis 2009 [9], cross-sectional study, N = 359 - Friedman 1997 [20], RCT, N = 2260 - Law 2010 [26], structured interview design study, N = 628 - Tai 2016 [25], RCT, N = 172 - Wolf 2016 [29], RCT, N = 845 |
Addition of pictograms/graphics | - Chan 2013 [21], non-randomized experimental study, N = 160 - Dowse 2005 [27], RCT, N = 87 - You 2011 [22], comparative study, N = 132 - Malhotra 2019 [30], RCT, N = 1414 - Friedman 1997 [20], RCT, N = 2260 - Yin 2017 [28], RCT, N = 491 |
Color/white space optimization | - Law 2010 [26], structured interview design study, N = 628 - Malhotra 2019 [30], RCT, N = 1414 - Tong 2018 [19], cohort study, N = 50 - Yin 2017 [28], RCT, N = 491 - Wolf 2016 [29], RCT, N = 845 |
Font size optimization | - You 2011 [22], comparative study, N = 132 - Malhotra 2019 [30], RCT, N = 1414 - Law 2010 [26], structured interview design study, N = 628 - Wolf 2016 [29], RCT, N = 845 |
Bilingual text | - Malhotra 2019 [30], RCT, N = 1414 |
Congruent information | - Bhansali 2016 [18], cross-sectional study, N = 249 |