Design of Brand Names of Medicines Considering Subjects’ Preferences

Abstract

Background:

Only recently, regulations on the names of medicines were developed. Regulations are mainly focused on avoiding the approval of medicine names that may be confusing to others. Furthermore, legal requirements do not include testing for human factors, such as potential users’ preferences.

Study aims:

To develop a set of new brand names of medicines, to determine subjects’ preferred names, and to evaluate if the linguistic features of these names were related to subjects’ preferences.

Methods:

Forty-six new names linguistically equivalent to the Portuguese brand names of medicines were developed. A panel of 13 postgraduates on linguistic studies were purposively enrolled. Participants were required to select and categorize the 6 most preferred names.

Results:

From the 29 selected names: 62.1% ended in consonants, 65.5% contained at least one syllable of the CVC type, and 62.1% presented final stress. Considering these 3 linguistic features, there were statistically significant differences between the preferred and underpreferred names: χ² = 4.572, P = .032; χ² = 5.599, P = .018; and χ² = 4.572; P = .032, respectively.

Conclusions:

Some linguistic features of the evaluated names were related to subjects’ preferences. Tests on subjects’ preferences about the names of medicines may provide additional safety features addressed by the present regulations.

Keywords

medicine names medicines regulations drug brands medicines information Portugal

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Corrigan

Kohn

Donaldson

, eds. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.

Kenagy

Stein

. Naming, labeling, and packaging of pharmaceuticals. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2001;58:2033–2041.

Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry contents of a complete submission for the evaluation of proprietary names, 2016. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm075068.pdf. Accessed August 13, 2016.

INFARMED, IP. Deliberação no. 144/CD/2012—Norma orientadora para a aceitação de nomes de medicamentos [Resolution no. 144 /CD/2012—Guiding norm for the acceptance of the medicines names]. http://www.infarmed.pt/portal/page/portal/INFARMED/MEDICAMENTOS_USO_HUMANO/AUTORIZACAO_DE_INTRODUCAO_NO_MERCADO/144_DAM_91.pdf. Accessed August 13, 2016.

Handler

Nace

Studenski

Fridsma

. Medication error reporting in long-term care. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2004;2:190–196.

Institute of Medicine. Preventing medication errors, 2007. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?%20record_id=11623. Accessed August 13, 2016.

Ostini

Roughead

Kirkpatrick

Monteith

Tett

. Quality use of medicines—medication safety issues in naming; look alike, sound-alike medicine names. Int J Pharm Pract. 2012;20:349–357.

Lambert

Lin

Tan

. Designing safe drug names. Drug Safety. 2005;28:495–512.

Jennifer

Monica

Malcolm

. The sound of brands. J Market. 2010;74:97–109.

10.

Usunier

Shaner

. Using linguistics for creating better international brand names. J Market Commun. 2002;8:211–218.

11.

Shrum

Lowrey

Luna

Lerman

Liu

. Testing phonetic symbolism effects on brand name preference for bilinguals across multiple languages. In Dahl

Johar

van Osselaer

SMJ

, eds. NA—Advances in Consumer Research. Vol. 38. Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.

12.

Meier

Rey-Mermet

Rothen

Graf

. Recognition memory across the lifespan: the impact of word frequency and study-test interval on estimates of familiarity and recollection. Front Psychol. 2013;4:787.

13.

Luna

Carnevale

Lerman Dawn . Does brand spelling influence memory? The case of auditorily presented brand names. J Consum Psychol. 2013;23:36–48.

14.

Cavaco

Costa

Pires

Correia

Vigário

. Exploring memory issues with the brand names of medicines. Int J Pharm Pract. 2016;(suppl 2): 4.

15.

European Medicines Agency. Guideline on the acceptability of names for human medicinal products processed through the center procedure. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Regulatory_and_procedural_guideline/2009/10/WC500004142.pdf. Published 2014. Accessed August 13, 2016.

16.

Citrome

. What’s in a name? Use of brand vs. generic drug names. Int J Clin Pract. 2016;70:3–4.

17.

NHS choices. Medicine information—brand names and generics. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Medicinesinfo/Pages/Brandnamesandgenerics.aspx. Published 2014. Accessed August 13, 2016.

18.

Pires

Vigário

Cavaco

. Brand names of Portuguese medicines: understanding the importance of their linguistic structure and regulatory issues. Cien Saude Colet. 2015;20:2569–2583.

19.

Lamber

Bhamuik

Zhao

Bhaumik

. Detection and prediction limits for identifying highly confusable drug names from experimental data. J Biopharm Stat. 2016;26:365–3685.

20.

Schroeder

Salomon

Galanter

. Cognitive tests predict real-world errors: the relationship between drug name confusion rates in laboratory-based memory and perception tests and corresponding error rates in large pharmacy chains [published online May 18, 2016]. BMJ Qual Saf. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-005099.

21.

Food and Drug Administration. Strategies to reduce medication errors: working to improve medication safety. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143553.htm. Published 2015. Accessed June 3, 2017.

22.

Therapeutics Goods Administration. Best practice guideline on prescription medicine labeling. https://www.tga.gov.au/publication/best-practice-guideline-prescription-medicine-labelling. Published 2011. Accessed August 13, 2016.

23.

INFARMED, IP. Prontuário Nacional Terapêutico–10 [National Prescribing Guide–10]. Lisbon: Autoridade Nacional do Medicamento e Produtos de Saúde, I.P.; 2011.

24.

Mateus

Brito

Duarte

. Gramática da Língua Portuguesa [Portuguese grammar], 6th ed. Lisbon: Caminho; 2004.

25.

Andrews

. The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval: resolving neighborhood conflicts. Psychon Bull Ver. 1997;4:439–461.

26.

Lambert

Lin

Tan

. Designing safe drug names. Drug Saf. 2005;28:495–512.

27.

New

Ferrand

Pallier

Brysbaert

. Reexamining the world length effect in visual word recognition: new evidence from the English Lexicon Project. Psychon Bull Rev. 2006;13:45–52.

28.

Vigário

Frota

Martins

. Para uma caracterização da distinção entre palavras prosódicas e clíticos com base em dados de frequência. In: XXVI Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, 2011. Textos Selecionados. Lisboa: Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, 589603. http://labfon.letras.ulisboa.pt/texts/Vigario_Frota_Martins_2011.pdf.

29.

Frota

Vigário

Martins

Cruz

. FrePOP: frequency patterns of phonological objects in Portuguese (version 1.0), 2007 [Database].

30.

Cooper

Cutler

Wales

. Constraints of lexical stress on lexical access in English: evidence from native and non-native listeners. Lang Speech. 2002;45:207–228.

31.

Loken

Joiner

Peck

. Category attitude measures: exemplars as inputs. J Consum Psychol. 2002;12:149–161.

32.

Wang

. Two-stage categorization in brand extension evaluation: electrophysiological time course evidence. PLoS One. 2014;9:e114150.

33.

Friedman

Leclercq

. Brand discrimination: an implicit measure of the strength of mental brand representations. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0121373.

34.

Priester

Nayakankuppam

Fleming

Godek

. The A 2 SC 2 Model: the influence of attitudes and attitude strength on consideration and choice. J Consum Res. 2004;30:574–587.

35.

Petty

Haugtvedt

. Elaboration as a determinant of attitude strength: creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant, and predictive of behavior. In: Petty

Krosnick

, eds. Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. New York: Psychology Press; 1995:93–138.

36.

Martins

Vigário

Frota

. FreP: Frequency Patterns of phonological objects in Portuguese (version 2.0), 2016 [Software]. http://labfon.letras.ulisboa.pt/FreP/tools.html. Accessed August 13, 2016.

37.

Baddeley

. The magical number seven: still magic after all these years? Psychol Rev. 1994;101:353–356.

38.

Vigário

Martins

Frota

. A ferramenta FreP e a frequência de tipos silábicos e de classes de segmentos no Português. [The tool FreP and the frequency of the syllabic types and classes of segments in Porguese]. Paper presented at: XXI National Meeting of the Portuguese Association of Linguistics, 2006.

39.

Mchugh

. The chi-square test of independence. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2013;23:143–149.

40.

One World Nations Online. Most common languages. http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/most_spoken_languages.htm. Accessed June 6, 2017.

41.

Vigário

Frota

Martins

. A frequência que conta na aquisição da fonologia: types ou tokens. In: XXV Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, 2010. Textos selecionados. Porto: Associação Portuguesa de Linguística, 749767. http://labfon.letras.ulisboa.pt/texts/Vigario_Frota_Martins_2010.pdf.

42.

Taylor

Holquist

. More on confusion of drug names. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1946–1947.

43.

Keller

. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. J Mark. 1993;57:1–22.