Differences in perceived risks and benefits of herbal, over-the-counter conventional, and prescribed conventional, medicines, and the implications of this for the safe and effective use of herbal products

Objectives: To investigate people's views about the efficacy and specific risks of herbal, over-the-counter (OTC) conventional, and prescribed conventional medicines, and their likelihood of taking a second (herbal or OTC conventional) product in addition to a prescribed medicine. Methods: Experiment 1 (1 factor within-participant design); Experiment 2 (1 factor between-participant design). Convenience samples of general population were given a hypothetical scenario and required to make a number of judgements. Results: People believed herbal remedies to be less effective, but less risky than OTC and prescribed conventional medicines. Herbal medicines were not seen as being safer simply because of their easier availability. Participants indicated that they would be more likely to take a herbal medicine than a conventional OTC medicine in addition to a prescribed medicine, and less likely to consult their doctor in advance. Conclusion: People believe that herbal medicines are natural and relatively safe and can be used with less caution. People need to be given clear information about the risks and benefits of herbal medicines if they are to use such products safety and effectively. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Comparison of two methods of presenting risk information to patients about the side effects of medicines

Objective: To determine whether the use of verbal descriptors suggested by the European Union (EU) such as "common" (1-10% frequency) and "rare" (0.01-0.1%) effectively conveys the level of risk of side effects to people taking a medicine. Design: Randomised controlled study with unconcealed allocation. Participants: 120 adults taking simvastatin or atorvastatin after cardiac surgery or myocardial infarction. Setting: Cardiac rehabilitation clinics at two hospitals in Leeds, UK. Intervention: A written statement about one of the side effects of the medicine (either constipation or pancreatitis). Within each side effect condition half the patients were given the information in verbal form and half in numerical form (for constipation, "common" or 2.5%; for pancreatitis, "rare" or 0.04%). Main outcome measure: The estimated likelihood of the side effect occurring. Other outcome measures related to the perceived severity of the side effect, its risk to health, and its effect on decisions about whether to take the medicine. Results: The mean likelihood estimate given for the constipation side effect was 34.2% in the verbal group and 8.1% in the numerical group; for pancreatitis it was 18% in the verbal group and 2.1% in the numerical group. The verbal descriptors were associated with more negative perceptions of the medicine than their equivalent numerical descriptors. Conclusions: Patients want and need understandable information about medicines and their risks and benefits. This is essential if they are to become partners in medicine taking. The use of verbal descriptors to improve the level of information about side effect risk leads to overestimation of the level of harm and may lead patients to make inappropriate decisions about whether or not they take the medicine.

Informing people about the risks and benefits of medicines: implications for the safe and effective use of medicinal products

Providing effective information about drug risks and benefits has become a major challenge for health professionals, as many people are ill equipped to understand, retain and use the information effectively. This paper reviews the growing evidence that people’s understanding (and health behaviour) is not only affected by the content of medicines information, but also by the particular way in which it is presented. Such presentational factors include whether information is presented verbally or numerically, framed positively or negatively, whether risk reductions are described in relative or absolute terms (and baseline information included), and whether information is personalized or tailored in any way. It also looks at how understanding is affected by the order in which information is presented, and the way in which it is processed. The paper concludes by making a number of recommendations for providers of medicines information, about both the content and presentation of such information, that should enhance safe and effective medicines usage.

Interpreting information about medication side effects: differences in risk perception and intention to comply when medicines are prescribed for adults or young children

This study investigates whether, and how, people's perception of risk and intended health behaviours are affected by whether a medicine is prescribed for themselves or for a young child. The question is relevant to the issue of whether it is beneficial to produce medicines information that is tailored to particular subgroups of the population, such as parents of young children. In the experiment, participants read scenarios which referred either to themselves or their (imagined) 1-year-old child, and were required to make a number of risk judgements. The results showed that both parents and non-parents were less satisfied, perceived side effects to be more severe and more likely to occur, risk to health to be higher, and said that they would be less likely to take (or give) the medicine when the recipient was the child. On the basis of the findings, it is suggested that it may well be beneficial to tailor materials to broader classes of patient type.

Over the counter medicines and the need for immediate action: a further evaluation of European Commission recommended wordings for communicating risk

A study examined people's interpretation of European Commission (EC) recommended verbal descriptors for risk of medicine side effects, and actions to take if they do occur. Members of the general public were presented with a fictitious (but realistic) scenario about suffering from a stiff neck, visiting the local pharmacy and purchasing an over the counter (OTC) medicine (Ibruprofen). The medicine came with an information leaflet which included information about the medicine's side effects, their risk of occurrence, and recommended actions to take if adverse effects are experienced. Probability of occurrence was presented numerically (6%) or verbally, using the recommended EC descriptor (common). Results showed that, in line with findings of our earlier work with prescribed medicines, participants significantly overestimated side effect risk. Furthermore, the differences in interpretation were reflected in their judgements of satisfaction, side effect severity, risk to health, and intention to take the medicine. Finally, we observed no significant difference between people's interpretation of the recommended action descriptors ('immediately' and 'as soon as possible'). (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Perceptions of the risks and benefits of medicines in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and other painful musculoskeletal conditions

Objectives. To examine beliefs about medication risks and benefits in patients attending a specialist rheumatology clinic for pain-related conditions. Methods. Eighty-one patients (37 first attendees and 44 existing clinic patients) completed a written questionnaire which asked about current treatments, perceived effectiveness, main risks and benefits, and compliance. Results. Existing clinic patients perceived medications to be more effective and more risky than did the new patients, although both groups rated risks to be moderately low. The main perceived risks were adverse side-effects, although patients reported only moderately low levels of experiencing such effects. Conclusions. In contrast to some other studies, many of our patients were aware of medication risks and were prepared to accept them provided benefits were seen to be high. Existing clinic patients were more aware of risks and benefits, and reported higher compliance levels than new patients, possibly as a result of the hospital education programme. Future studies should evaluate the effects of the programme more systematically.

PINCER trial: a cluster randomised trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist-led IT-based intervention with simple feedback in reducing rates of clinically important errors in medicines management in general practices

Background: Medication errors in general practice are an important source of potentially preventable morbidity and mortality. Building on previous descriptive, qualitative and pilot work, we sought to investigate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and likely generalisability of a complex pharm acist-led IT-based intervention aiming to improve prescribing safety in general practice. Objectives: We sought to: • Test the hypothesis that a pharmacist-led IT-based complex intervention using educational outreach and practical support is more effective than simple feedback in reducing the proportion of patients at risk from errors in prescribing and medicines management in general practice. • Conduct an economic evaluation of the cost per error avoided, from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS). • Analyse data recorded by pharmacists, summarising the proportions of patients judged to be at clinical risk, the actions recommended by pharmacists, and actions completed in the practices. • Explore the views and experiences of healthcare professionals and NHS managers concerning the intervention; investigate potential explanations for the observed effects, and inform decisions on the future roll-out of the pharmacist-led intervention • Examine secular trends in the outcome measures of interest allowing for informal comparison between trial practices and practices that did not participate in the trial contributing to the QRESEARCH database. Methods Two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial of 72 English general practices with embedded economic analysis and longitudinal descriptive and qualitative analysis. Informal comparison of the trial findings with a national descriptive study investigating secular trends undertaken using data from practices contributing to the QRESEARCH database. The main outcomes of interest were prescribing errors and medication monitoring errors at six- and 12-months following the intervention. Results: Participants in the pharmacist intervention arm practices were significantly less likely to have been prescribed a non-selective NSAID without a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) if they had a history of peptic ulcer (OR 0.58, 95%CI 0.38, 0.89), to have been prescribed a beta-blocker if they had asthma (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58, 0.91) or (in those aged 75 years and older) to have been prescribed an ACE inhibitor or diuretic without a measurement of urea and electrolytes in the last 15 months (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34, 0.78). The economic analysis suggests that the PINCER pharmacist intervention has 95% probability of being cost effective if the decision-maker’s ceiling willingness to pay reaches £75 (6 months) or £85 (12 months) per error avoided. The intervention addressed an issue that was important to professionals and their teams and was delivered in a way that was acceptable to practices with minimum disruption of normal work processes. Comparison of the trial findings with changes seen in QRESEARCH practices indicated that any reductions achieved in the simple feedback arm were likely, in the main, to have been related to secular trends rather than the intervention. Conclusions Compared with simple feedback, the pharmacist-led intervention resulted in reductions in proportions of patients at risk of prescribing and monitoring errors for the primary outcome measures and the composite secondary outcome measures at six-months and (with the exception of the NSAID/peptic ulcer outcome measure) 12-months post-intervention. The intervention is acceptable to pharmacists and practices, and is likely to be seen as costeffective by decision makers.

Pharmacovigilance of herbal medicines

Pharmacovigilance is essential for developing reliable information on the safety of herbal medicines as used in Europe and the US. The existing systems were developed for synthetic medicines and require some modification to address the specific differences of medicinal herbs. Traditional medicine from many different cultures is used in Europe and the US which adds to the complexities and difficulties of even basic questions such as herb naming systems and chemical variability. Allied to this also is the perception that a ‘natural’ or herbal product must be safe simply because it is not synthetic which means that the safety element of monitoring for such medicines can be overlooked because of the tag associated with such products. Cooperation between orthodox physicians and traditional practitioners is needed to bring together the full case details. Independent scientific assistance on toxicological investigation, botanical verification can be invaluable for full evaluation of any case report. Systematic pharmacovigilance is essential to build up reliable information on the safety of herbal medicines for the development of appropriate guidelines for safe effective use.