ABSTRACT
The saturation of self-care products in the market is coupled with inadequate information on their safe usage. In Japan, although foods with function claims (FFC) are prevalent, their labelling falls short in quality and effectiveness as health information, impeding consumer comprehension and proper utilization. Hence, it is imperative to establish a system that assesses the efficacy of labelling information from both provider and user perspectives. From providers’ or healthcare professionals’ perspective, we already developed a Communication Index to assess FFC labelling, which we utilized to evaluate five FFC products. Those products achieved a proficiency level of approximately 70%, falling below the acceptance criteria. Particularly, challenges were identified in understanding some of the terms and locating important information on the labels. In this study, we conducted user-testing from the user perspective for five same FFC labels to evaluate them using semi-structured interviews with 50 participants of diverse ages and sexes. A passing criterion for comprehension was set as ≥90% correct responses to all questions. Of the five FFC products, one passed the user-testing criterion with a 2-min response time; however, none passed the 1-min response time test. The proportions of correct answers were notably low for questions on diet and allergies (each 50-90%), concomitant medications (50-100%), storage (30-100%), and handling (30-100%). Participants’ comments revealed a lack of familiarity with FFC, highlighting that the terms and text in the labelling were confusing and overly technical. User-testing provides valuable insights for improving FFC labelling, thereby ensuring safe and appropriate use by aligning with consumers’ understanding and perceptions. We assessed FFC label information from both the provider and user perspectives, but neither yielded satisfactory results. Consequently, the implementation of an integrated system capable of evaluating FCC labels as health information material from both perspectives would be necessary.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Yes
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Kumamoto Graduate School of Pharmaceutical Sciences (No.2039) The IRB is organised as follows (1)One faculty member each elected for each of the basic medicine, clinical medicine, health sciences and pharmacy departments of the Graduate School of Life Sciences (2)One faculty member elected from the Institute of Developmental Medicine, the Centre for Life Resources Research and Support and the Joint Research Centre for Human Retroviruses (3)One expert in biological sciences (4)3 experts in the humanities and social sciences, such as specialists in ethics and law (5)3 persons who can give their opinions from a general standpoint, including from the perspective of the participants in the research. (6)Other persons deemed necessary by the chairperson The committee is composed of both men and women and includes several persons who have no vested interest in Kumamoto University.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
