Open Access
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 124, 2021
International Conference on Management, Social Sciences & Humanities (ICMeSH 2020)
Article Number 01004
Number of page(s) 10
Section 21st Century Learning Approaches & Sustainable innovations in Language and Communications
Published online 15 November 2021
  1. W.U. Dressier and E.M. Eckkrammer, “Functional explanation in contrastive textology” Logos and Language, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 25–43, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  2. S. Punchak and E. Kay, “Educating arthritis patients about their drugs” Pharmaceutical Journal, vol. 238, pp. 247–249, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  3. A.B. Zion and J. Aiman, “Level of reading difficulty in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists patient education pamphlets” Obstetrics & Gynecology, vol. 74, no. 6, pp. 955–960, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  4. C.D. Meade and C.F. Smith, “Readability formulas: cautions and criteria” Patient education and counseling, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 153–158, 1991. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. S. Payne, S. Large, N. Jarrett, and P. Turner, “Written information given to patients and families by palliative care units: a national survey” The Lancet, vol. 355, no. 9217, p. 1792, 2000. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. R. Buchbinder, S. Hall, G. Grant, A. Mylvaganam, and M.R. Patrick, “Readability and content of supplementary written drug information for patients used by Australian rheumatologists” The Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 174, no. 11, pp. 575–578, 2001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. A. Blanck and A. Nyblom, “Package Leaflets today: A Betrayal of Europe’s patients,” Scrip Regulatory Affairs August, pp. 16–17, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  8. H. Gottfreôsdottir, K. Bjornsdottir, and J. Sandall, “How do prospective parents who decline prenatal screening account for their decision? A qualitative study” Social Science & Medicine, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 274277 2009 [Google Scholar]
  9. M.H.R. Association, “Always read the leaflet: getting the best information with every medicine,” in Always read the leaflet: getting the best information with every medicine: MHRA/CSM, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  10. C. Association, “Patient information leaflets: sick notes,” London: Consumers' Association, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  11. E.P. a. t. C. o. t. E. Union, “Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community Code relating to medicinal products for human use,” Official Journal, no. L311, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  12. R. Clerehan and R. Buchbinder, “Toward a more valid account of functional text quality: The case of the patient information leaflet,” Text & Talk-An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse Communication Studies, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 39–68, 2006. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. K.K. Zethsen and I. Askehave, “PIL of the month: A study of best practice in EU patient information leaflets” Journal of Applied Linguistics & Professional Practice, vol. 7, no. 1, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  14. I. Askehave and K. Korning Zethsen, “Communication barriers in public discourse: The patient package insert” Document Design, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 22–41, 2003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. I. Gal and A. Prigat, “Why organizations continue to create patient information leaflets with readability and usability problems: an exploratory study” Health Education Research, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 485–493, 2005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. H.P. Maat and L. Lentz, “Improving the usability of patient information leaflets” Patient education and counseling, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 113–119, 2010. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. F. Pellisé, P. Sell, and E.P.L.T. Force, “Patient information and education with modern media: the Spine Society of Europe Patient Line” European Spine Journal, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 395–401, 2009. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. L. Mallet and W.J. Spruill, “Readability evaluation of nine patient drug education sources” American pharmacy, vol. 28, no. 11, pp. 33–36, 1988. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. A. Horwitz, L. Reuther, and S.E. Andersen, “Patienters vurdering af medicinpakningernes indlægssedler,” Ugeskrift for Læger, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  20. E. Commission, “Guideline on the readability of the labelling and package leaflet of medicinal products for human use,” 2009. European Commission: Brussels (Belgium) [Google Scholar]
  21. “Quality Review of Documents Group: QRD Annotated Template: Revision of the Product Information,” 2010. London: European Medicines Agency [Google Scholar]
  22. “Quality Review of Documents: Draft Version of the QRD Annotated Template for External Consultation,” 2009. [Google Scholar]
  23. N. Carrigan, D. Raynor, and P. Knapp, “Adequacy of patient information on adverse effects” Drug safety, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 305–312, 2008. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. J. Fuchs, T. Heyer, D. Langenhan, and M. Hippius, “Influence of font sizes on the readability and comprehensibility of package inserts” Pharmazeutische Industrie, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 584–592, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  25. R.J. Amdur, J. Kirwan, and C.G. Morris, “Use of the passive voice in medical journal articles” American Medical Writers Association AMWA journal, vol. 25, no. 3, p. 98, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  26. A.V. Bianco, “Informa (c) tion: How to do things with medicine information leaflets” Lingue e Linguaggi, pp. 27–52, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  27. C. Burgers, C.J. Beukeboom, L. Sparks, and V. Diepeveen, “How (not) to inform patients about drug use: use and effects of negations in Dutch patient information leaflets” Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 137–143, 2015. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. W.H. Organization, “Country Cooperation Strategy at a glance: Malaysia,” 2011. [Google Scholar]
  29. G. de Vogelaer, “1984-G. Geerts, W. Haeseryn, J. de Rooij & MC van den Toorn: Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst. Groningen, Wolters-Noordhoff” Internationale Neerlandistiek, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 70–72, 2012. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. J.R. Searle, “A classification of illocutionary acts” Language in society, vol. 5, no. 01, pp. 1–23, 1976. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. D. Sless and Shrensky, Writing about Medicines for People: Usability Guidelines for Consumer Product Information. Department of Health & Family Services, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  32. L. Trimble, English for science and technology: A discourse approach. Cambridge University Press, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  33. J.M. Dodds, Italian translation itineraries. Campanotto, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  34. A. Ciliberti, Adeguatezze e inadeguatezze dei manuali di istruzioni. na, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  35. A. Downing and P. Locke, English grammar: A university course. Routledge, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  36. J. Krska and C.W. Morecroft, “Patients’ use of information about medicine side effects in relation to experiences of suspected adverse drug reactions: a cross-sectional survey in medical in-patients” Drug safety, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 673–680, 2013. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. R. Giora, N. Balaban, O. Fein, and I. Alkabets, “Negation as positivity in disguise” Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences, pp. 233–258, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  38. S.J. Margolin and L. Abrams, “Not may not be too difficult: The effects of negation on older adults' sentence comprehension” Educational Gerontology, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 308–322, 2009. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  39. C.J. Beukeboom, C. Finkenauer, and D.H. Wigboldus, “The negation bias: when negations signal stereotypic expectancies” Journal of personality and social psychology, vol. 99, no. 6, p. 978, 2010. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  40. M. Gotti, Specialized discourse: Linguistic features and changing conventions. P. Lang, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  41. A.P. Sheen, Breathing life into medical writing: a handbook. CV Mosby, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  42. F. Scarpa, La traduzione specializzata: un approccio didattico professionale. U. Hoepli, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  43. G. Myers, “The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles” Applied linguistics, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–35, 1989. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  44. M.A. Halliday, “1994” An introduction to functional grammar, vol. 2, 1985. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.