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.

Expressing medicine side effects: assessing the effectiveness of absolute risk, relative risk, and number needed to harm, and the provision of baseline risk information

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of absolute risk, relative risk, and number needed to harm formats for medicine side effects, with and without the provision of baseline risk information. Methods: A two factor, risk increase format (relative, absolute and NNH) x baseline (present/absent) between participants design was used. A sample of 268 women was given a scenario about increase in side effect risk with third generation oral contraceptives, and were required to answer written questions to assess their understanding, satisfaction, and likelihood of continuing to take the drug. Results: Provision of baseline information significantly improved risk estimates and increased satisfaction, although the estimates were still considerably higher than the actual risk. No differences between presentation formats were observed when baseline information was presented. Without baseline information, absolute risk led to the most accurate performance. Conclusion: The findings support the importance of informing people about baseline level of risk when describing risk increases. In contrast, they offer no support for using number needed to harm. Practice implications: Health professionals should provide baseline risk information when presenting information about risk increases or decreases. More research is needed before numbers needed to harm (or treat) should be given to members of the general populations. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Communicating risk of medication side effects: an empirical evaluation of EU recommended terminology

Two experiments compared people's interpretation of verbal and numerical descriptions of the risk of medication side effects occurring. The verbal descriptors were selected from those recommended for use by the European Union (very common, common, uncommon, rare, very rare). Both experiments used a controlled empirical methodology, in which nearly 500 members of the general population were presented with a fictitious (but realistic) scenario about visiting the doctor and being prescribed medication, together with information about the medicine's side effects and their probability of occurrence. Experiment 1 found that, in all three age groups tested (18 - 40, 41 - 60 and over 60), participants given a verbal descriptor (very common) estimated side effect risk to be considerably higher than those given a comparable numerical description. Furthermore, the differences in interpretation were reflected in their judgements of side effect severity, risk to health, and intention to comply. Experiment 2 confirmed these findings using two different verbal descriptors (common and rare) and in scenarios which described either relatively severe or relatively mild side effects. Strikingly, only 7 out of 180 participants in this study gave a probability estimate which fell within the EU assigned numerical range. Thus, large scale use of the descriptors could have serious negative consequences for individual and public health. We therefore recommend that the EU and National authorities suspend their recommendations regarding these descriptors until a more substantial evidence base is available to support their appropriate use.

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.

Making the least active pay: a simulation of rewards and penalties under Demand Side Participation programs

The orthodox approach for incentivising Demand Side Participation (DSP) programs is that utility losses from capital, installation and planning costs should be recovered under financial incentive mechanisms which aim to ensure that utilities have the right incentives to implement DSP activities. The recent national smart metering roll-out in the UK implies that this approach needs to be reassessed since utilities will recover the capital costs associated with DSP technology through bills. This paper introduces a reward and penalty mechanism focusing on residential users. DSP planning costs are recovered through payments from those consumers who do not react to peak signals. Those consumers who do react are rewarded by paying lower bills. Because real-time incentives to residential consumers tend to fail due to the negligible amounts associated with net gains (and losses) or individual users, in the proposed mechanism the regulator determines benchmarks which are matched against responses to signals and caps the level of rewards/penalties to avoid market distortions. The paper presents an overview of existing financial incentive mechanisms for DSP; introduces the reward/penalty mechanism aimed at fostering DSP under the hypothesis of smart metering roll-out; considers the costs faced by utilities for DSP programs; assesses linear rate effects and value changes; introduces compensatory weights for those consumers who have physical or financial impediments; and shows findings based on simulation runs on three discrete levels of elasticity.