HOW UNDERSTANDABLE AND ACTIONABLE ARE SFDA MEDICATION EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS? A PEMAT-BASED EVALUATION
Author(s)
Marwan Alrasheed, PharmD, PhD1, Meshari Alwehaibi, PharmD2, Omar Alkhudhayr, PharmD2.
1King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
1King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2College of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
OBJECTIVES: The Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) distributes medication-related educational materials to the public, yet their quality has not been formally evaluated. This study assessed understandability and actionability across material formats and thematic categories.
METHODS: A cross-sectional evaluation was conducted on patient-facing medication materials from the SFDA website and YouTube channel. Excluded items included content targeting healthcare professionals, materials unrelated to medication use, duplicates, and inaccessible items. Of 82 printable and 22 audiovisual materials initially screened, 71 and 21 respectively met inclusion criteria after removing duplicates. Eligible materials were classified into six thematic categories: drug safety, awareness guide, OTC drugs, vaccine safety information, child care, and pharmaceutical information. Three independent reviewers assessed each item using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), a validated AHRQ instrument. PEMAT-P was applied to printable and PEMAT-A/V to audiovisual materials; items are scored 0 or 1 and final scores represent the percentage of applicable items met. A score of 70% defined the acceptability threshold.
RESULTS: Mean understandability scores were comparable across formats (printable: 79.8%; audiovisual: 79.2%), while actionability diverged substantially (audiovisual: 88.6% vs. printable: 59.8%, below the acceptability threshold). Among printable materials, OTC drug content scored highest (understandability: 92.8%; actionability: 82.3%) and vaccine safety materials lowest (understandability: 72.1%; actionability: 31.5%). A similar pattern was observed for audiovisual materials, with OTC drugs performing best (85.0%; 100.0%) and pharmaceutical information lowest (77.8%; 64.8%).
CONCLUSIONS: SFDA materials demonstrated acceptable understandability across both formats; however, printable materials exhibited a marked actionability deficit, suggesting that patients may comprehend content yet lack sufficient guidance to act. The critically low actionability of vaccine safety materials warrants urgent attention given the public health implications of vaccination hesitancy. Incorporating explicit calls-to-action, sequential instructions, and directive language into printable materials, alongside expanded audiovisual coverage, is recommended to strengthen SFDA's patient-education impact.
METHODS: A cross-sectional evaluation was conducted on patient-facing medication materials from the SFDA website and YouTube channel. Excluded items included content targeting healthcare professionals, materials unrelated to medication use, duplicates, and inaccessible items. Of 82 printable and 22 audiovisual materials initially screened, 71 and 21 respectively met inclusion criteria after removing duplicates. Eligible materials were classified into six thematic categories: drug safety, awareness guide, OTC drugs, vaccine safety information, child care, and pharmaceutical information. Three independent reviewers assessed each item using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), a validated AHRQ instrument. PEMAT-P was applied to printable and PEMAT-A/V to audiovisual materials; items are scored 0 or 1 and final scores represent the percentage of applicable items met. A score of 70% defined the acceptability threshold.
RESULTS: Mean understandability scores were comparable across formats (printable: 79.8%; audiovisual: 79.2%), while actionability diverged substantially (audiovisual: 88.6% vs. printable: 59.8%, below the acceptability threshold). Among printable materials, OTC drug content scored highest (understandability: 92.8%; actionability: 82.3%) and vaccine safety materials lowest (understandability: 72.1%; actionability: 31.5%). A similar pattern was observed for audiovisual materials, with OTC drugs performing best (85.0%; 100.0%) and pharmaceutical information lowest (77.8%; 64.8%).
CONCLUSIONS: SFDA materials demonstrated acceptable understandability across both formats; however, printable materials exhibited a marked actionability deficit, suggesting that patients may comprehend content yet lack sufficient guidance to act. The critically low actionability of vaccine safety materials warrants urgent attention given the public health implications of vaccination hesitancy. Incorporating explicit calls-to-action, sequential instructions, and directive language into printable materials, alongside expanded audiovisual coverage, is recommended to strengthen SFDA's patient-education impact.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
PCR215
Topic
Epidemiology & Public Health, Organizational Practices, Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
Patient Engagement
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas