Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A trial revealed personalized labeling improves decision making in self-medicating patients, suggesting better OTC selection and use.
Interactions between self-medicating consumers and labeling of Over-the-Counter medications (OTC) influence the quality of information processing and, hence, appropriateness of decisions. Our previous work yielded evidence that during the early stages of information processing important regulatory information was frequently unnoticed and that decision-making related to OTCs could be improved. We postulated the concept of “personalized labeling” would address recognized shortcomings affiliated with current OTC labels. This strategy uses an augmented reality interface to present users with a recommendation related to an OTC’s appropriateness for the individual’s use while the product is being viewed through their smart phone. In doing so, it advises decisions specific to the user’s health history and medication usage, assisting with appropriate decision making. To develop data in support of a proof of concept for this strategy, we utilized an absolute judgement test. Seventy-two participants divided into two cohorts (educated to the personalized labeling strategy vs control) made binary decisions related to a drug’s appropriateness for use by a theoretical patient considering single-ingredient products. Response variables measured the approach’s effectiveness (response accuracy) and efficiency (time to accurate decision). When educated to the personalized labeling concept, participants made decisions significantly more accurately (personalized: ME=0.977, SE=0.007; standard: ME=0.933, SE=0.017; p=0.002) and faster (personalized: ME=9.584s, SE=0.854; standard: ME=19.052s, SE=2.322; p<0.001) for trials with personalized Front-of-Pack (FOP) labels compared to trials composed of the current commercial standard. This suggests that personalized labeling has the potential to improve consumer decision making related to OTC selection and use. Future studies are needed utilizing a broader range of populations, package types, and use contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: