Volume 26, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0142-5471
  • E-ISSN: 1569-979X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The purpose of pharmaceutical pictograms is to help patients manage their medicinal treatment. However, the pictograms often lack perceptual clarity. While they are frequently tested for aspects such as comprehension, little attention has been paid to their legibility. This paper presents the conception and results of an experiment adapted from the ISO ‘Method for testing perceptual quality’ (ISO 9186-2:2008) to measure the visibility of pictogram elements in two sets: 15 American USP pictograms and 15 redesigned versions reduced in complexity. The statistical analysis did not show reliable significant differences, which indicates that there are more factors at stake.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Askehave, I., & Zethsen, K. K.
    (2014) A comparative analysis of the lay-friendliness of Danish EU patient information leaflets from 2000 to 2012. Communication & Medicine, 11(3), 209–222. 10.1558/cam.v11i3.20700
    https://doi.org/10.1558/cam.v11i3.20700 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barros, I. M. C., Alcântara, T. S., Mesquita, A. R., Santos, A. C. O., Paixão, F. P., & Lyra, Jr.
    (2014) The use of pictograms in the health care: A literature review. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 10(5), 704–719. 10.1016/j.sapharm.2013.11.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2013.11.002 [Google Scholar]
  3. Beier, S.
    (2012) Reading Letters: Designing for legibility. BIS Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Beier, S., Bernard, J.-B., & Castet, E.
    (2018, June28). Numeral Legibility and Visual Complexity. Design Research Society Conference2018. 10.21606/drs.2018.246
    https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2018.246 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bernard, J. B., & Chung, S. T.
    (2011) The dependence of crowding on flanker complexity and target–flanker similarity. Journal of Vision, 11(8). 10.1167/11.8.1
    https://doi.org/10.1167/11.8.1 [Google Scholar]
  6. Boersema, T., & Adams, A. S.
    (2017) Does my symbol sign work?Information Design: Research and Practice, Edited byAlison Black, Paul Luna, Ole Lund and Sue Walker (pp.303–314). Routlege.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bouma, H.
    (1970) Interaction effects in parafoveal letter recognition. Nature, 226, 177–178. 10.1038/226177a0
    https://doi.org/10.1038/226177a0 [Google Scholar]
  8. Choi, J.
    (2011) Literature review: Using pictographs in discharge instructions for older adults with low-literacy skills. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 20(21–22), 2984–2996. 10.1111/j.1365‑2702.2011.03814.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03814.x [Google Scholar]
  9. Del Re, L., Vaillancourt, R., Villarreal, G., & Pouliot, A.
    (2016) Pictograms: Can They Help Patients Recall Medication Safety Instructions?Visible Language, Vol.50(1), 127–151.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dickinson, D., & Gallina, S.
    (2017) Chapter 47: Information design in medicine package leaflets – How detailed design and usability testing can help medicine users. InInformation Design – Research and Practice (pp.685–700). Routlege.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Directive 92/27/EEC, Council Directive 92/27/EEC
    Directive 92/27/EEC, Council Directive 92/27/EECof31March 1992 on the labelling of medicinal products for human use and on package leaflets OJ No L 113 of 30.4.1992 (1992).
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dowse, R.
    (2021) Designing and reporting pictogram research: Problems, pitfalls and lessons learnt. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 17(6), 1208–1215. 10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.08.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.08.013 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dowse, R., & Ehlers, M. S.
    (1998) Pictograms in pharmacy. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 6(2), 109–118. 10.1111/j.2042‑7174.1998.tb00924.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-7174.1998.tb00924.x [Google Scholar]
  14. Hamm, L. M., Yeoman, J. P., Anstice, N., & Dakin, S. C.
    (2018) The Auckland Optotypes: An open-access pictogram set for measuring recognition acuity. Journal of Vision, 18(3), 13. 10.1167/18.3.13
    https://doi.org/10.1167/18.3.13 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hill, L. H.
    (2006) Using visual concept mapping to communicate medication information to patients with low health literacy; a preliminary study. Second International Conference on Concept Mapping, 621–628.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Houts, P. S., Doak, C. C., Doak, L. G., & Loscalzo, M. J.
    (2006) The role of pictures in improving health communication: A review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient Education and Counseling, 61(2), 173–190. 10.1016/j.pec.2005.05.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  17. ISO 9186-2:2008
    ISO 9186-2:2008 (2008) Graphical symbols – Test methods – Part 2: Method for testing perceptual quality. Geneva: ISO.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kanji, L., Xu, S., & Cavaco, A.
    (2018) Assessing the Understanding of Pharmaceutical Pictograms among Cultural Minorities: The Example of Hindu Individuals Communicating in European Portuguese. Pharmacy, 6(1:22). 10.3390/pharmacy6010022
    https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy6010022 [Google Scholar]
  19. Katz, M. G., Kripalani, S., & Weiss, B. D.
    (2006) Use of pictorial aids in medication instructions: A review of the literature. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 63(23), 2391–2397. 10.2146/ajhp060162
    https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp060162 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kline, D. W., & Fuchs, P.
    (1993) The Visibility of Symbolic Highway Signs Can Be Increased among Drivers of All Ages. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 35(1), 25–34. 10.1177/001872089303500102
    https://doi.org/10.1177/001872089303500102 [Google Scholar]
  21. Knapp, P., Raynor, D. K., Jebar, A. H., & Price, S. J.
    (2005) Interpretation of Medication Pictograms by Adults in the UK. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 39(7–8), 1227–1233. 10.1345/aph.1E483
    https://doi.org/10.1345/aph.1E483 [Google Scholar]
  22. Korenevsky, A., Vaillancourt, R., Pouliot, A., Revol, M., Steed, E., Besançon, L., Wahrendorf, M.-S., & Patel, J. R.
    (2013) How Many Words Does a Picture Really Tell? Cross-sectional Descriptive Study of Pictogram Evaluation by Youth. The Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, 66(4), 219–226. 10.4212/cjhp.v66i4.1269
    https://doi.org/10.4212/cjhp.v66i4.1269 [Google Scholar]
  23. Lalor, S. J. H., Formankiewicz, M. A., & Waugh, S. J.
    (2016) Crowding and visual acuity measured in adults using paediatric test letters, pictures and symbols. Vision Research, 121, 31–38. 10.1016/j.visres.2016.01.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2016.01.007 [Google Scholar]
  24. Legge, G. E., Cheung, S.-H., Yu, D., Chung, S. T., Lee, H.-W., & Owens, D. P.
    (2007) The case for the visual span as a sensory bottleneck in reading. Journal of Vision, 7(2), 9–9. 10.1167/7.2.9
    https://doi.org/10.1167/7.2.9 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lesch, M. F., Powell, W. R., Horrey, W. J., & Wogalter, M. S.
    (2013) The use of contextual cues to improve warning symbol comprehension: Making the connection for older adults. Ergonomics, 56(8), 1264–1279. 10.1080/00140139.2013.802019
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2013.802019 [Google Scholar]
  26. Pander Maat, H., & Lentz, L.
    (2010) Improving the usability of patient information. Patient Education and Counseling, Volume80(Issue1), 113–119. 10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.030
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.030 [Google Scholar]
  27. Pedersen, P.
    (2019) Legibility of Pharmaceutical Pictograms: Towards defining a paradigm. Visible Language, 53(2), 72–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Pelli, D. G., Burns, C. W., Farell, B., & Moore-Page, D. C.
    (2006) Feature detection and letter identification. Vision Research, 46(28), 4646–4674. 10.1016/j.visres.2006.04.023
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2006.04.023 [Google Scholar]
  29. Radner, W.
    (2017) Reading charts in ophthalmology. Graefe’s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 255(8), 1465–1482. 10.1007/s00417‑017‑3659‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-017-3659-0 [Google Scholar]
  30. Rosa, E., Perea, M., & Enneson, P.
    (2016) The role of letter features in visual-word recognition: Evidence from a delayed segment technique. Acta Psychologica, 169, 133–142. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.05.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.05.016 [Google Scholar]
  31. Rosen, S., Chakravarthi, R., & Pelli, D. G.
    (2014) The Bouma law of crowding, revised: Critical spacing is equal across parts, not objects. Journal of Vision, 14(6), 10–10. 10.1167/14.6.10
    https://doi.org/10.1167/14.6.10 [Google Scholar]
  32. Sayim, B., & Wagemans, J.
    (2017) Appearance changes and error characteristics in crowding revealed by drawings. Journal of Vision, 17(11), 8. 10.1167/17.11.8
    https://doi.org/10.1167/17.11.8 [Google Scholar]
  33. Schubert, T.
    (2017) Why are digits easier to identify than letters?Neuropsychologia. 95, 136–155. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.12.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.12.016 [Google Scholar]
  34. Sharif, S. I., Abdulla, M., Yousif, A., & Mohamed, D.
    (2014) Interpretation of Pharmaceutical Pictograms by Pharmacy and Non-Pharmacy University Students. Pharmacology Pharmacy, 05(08), 821–827. 10.4236/pp.2014.58092
    https://doi.org/10.4236/pp.2014.58092 [Google Scholar]
  35. Strauss, A., & Zender, M.
    (2017) Design by Consensus: A New Method for Designing Effective Pictograms. Visible Language, 51(2), 7–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Vaillancourt, R., Giby, C. N., Murphy, B. P., Pouliot, A., & Trinneer, A.
    (2019) Recall of Pharmaceutical Pictograms by Older Adults. The Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, 72(6). 10.4212/cjhp.v72i6.2944
    https://doi.org/10.4212/cjhp.v72i6.2944 [Google Scholar]
  37. Waarde, K. van der
    (2008) Measuring the quality of information in medical package leaflets: Harmful or helpful?Information Design Journal, 16(3), 216–228. 10.1075/idj.16.3.05waa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.16.3.05waa [Google Scholar]
  38. (2010) Visual Communication for Medicines: Malignant Assumptions and Benign Design?Visible Language, Vol.44(1), 39–69.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (2017) Chapter 49 Medical information design and its legislation. InA. Black, P. Luna, O. Lund, & S. Walker (Eds.), Information Design – Research and Practice (pp.715–730). Routlege.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Waarde, K. van der, & Spinillo, C.
    (2015) Chapter 12: The development of visual information about medicines in Europe. InJ. Frascara (Ed.), Information design as principled action: Making information accessible, relevant, understandable, and usable (pp.185–189). Common Ground Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. WHO
    WHO (2019) Medication Safety in Polypharmacy (WHO/UHC/SDS/2019.11). World Health Organization.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Wogalter, M. S., Conzola, V. C., & Smith-Jackson, T. L.
    (2002) Research-based guidelines for warning design and evaluation. Applied Ergonomics, 33(3), 219–230. 10.1016/S0003‑6870(02)00009‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(02)00009-1 [Google Scholar]
  43. Wogalter, M. S., La Murray, T. A., Glover, B. L., & Shaver, E. F.
    (2002) Comprehension of Different Types of Prohibitive Safety Symbols with Glance Exposure. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 46(19), 1753–1757. 10.1177/154193120204601914
    https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120204601914 [Google Scholar]
  44. Wong, B., & Szücs, D.
    (2013) Single-digit Arabic numbers do not automatically activate magnitude representations in adults or in children: Evidence from the symbolic same–different task. Acta Psychologica, 144(3), 488–498. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.08.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.08.006 [Google Scholar]
  45. Zhang, J. Y., Zhang, T., Xue, F., Liu, L., & Yu, C.
    (2007) Legibility variations of Chinese characters and implications for visual acuity measurement in Chinese reading population. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 48(5), 2383–2390. 10.1167/iovs.06‑1195
    https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.06-1195 [Google Scholar]
  46. Zender, M., & Mejía, G. M.
    (2013) Improving Icon Design: Through Focus on the Role of Individual Symbols in the Construction of Meaning. VISIBLE LANGUAGE, 48(1), 69–95.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error