Evaluating explanations about drug prescriptions: effects of varying the nature of information about side effects and its relative position in explanations

This study evaluates computer-generated written explanations about drug prescriptions that are based on an analysis of both patient and doctor informational needs. Three experiments examine the effects of varying the type of information given about the possible side effects of the medication, and the order of information within the explanation. Experiment 1 investigated the effects of these two factors on people's ratings of how good they consider the explanations to be and of their perceived likelihood of taking the medication, as well as on their memory for the information in the explanation. Experiment 2 further examined the effects of varying information about side effects by separating out the contribution of number and severity of side effects. It was found that participants in this study did not “like” explanations that described severe side effects, and also judged that they would be less likely to take the medication if given such explanations. Experiment 3 therefore investigated whether information about severe side effects could be presented in such a way as to increase judgements of how good explanations are thought to be, as well as the perceived likelihood of adherence. The results showed some benefits of providing additional explanatory information.

Memory for medication side effects in younger and older adults: the role of subjective and objective importance

Older adults often experience memory impairments, but can sometimes use selective processing and schematic support to remember important information. The current experiments investigate to what degree younger and healthy older adults remember medication side effects that were subjectively or objectively important to remember. Participants studied a list of common side effects, and rated how negative these effects were if they were to experience them, and were then given a free recall test. In Experiment 1, the severity of the side effects ranged from mild (e.g., itching) to severe (e.g., stroke), and in Experiment 2, certain side effects were indicated as critical to remember (i.e., “contact your doctor if you experience this”). There were no age differences in terms of free recall of the side effects, and older adults remembered more severe side effects relative to mild effects. However, older adults were less likely to recognize critical side effects on a later recognition test, relative to younger adults. The findings suggest that older adults can selectively remember medication side effects, but have difficulty identifying familiar but potentially critical side effects, and this has implications for monitoring medication use in older age.

Is 15 per cent very common? Informing people about the risks of medication side effects

Objectives - To assess the general public's interpretation of the verbal descriptors for side effect frequency recommended for use in medicine information leaflets by a European Union (EU) guideline, and to examine the extent to which differences in interpretation affect people's perception of risk and their judgments of intention to comply with the prescribed treatment. Method - Two studies used a controlled empirical methodology in which people were presented with a hypothetical, but realistic, scenario about visiting their general practitioner and being prescribed medication. They were given an explanation that focused on the side effects of the medicine, together with information about the probability of occurrence using either numerical percentages or the corresponding EU verbal descriptors. Interpretation of the descriptors was assessed. In study 2, participants were also required to make various judgments, including risk to health and intention to comply. Key findings - In both studies, use of the EU recommended descriptors led to significant overestimations of the likelihood of particular side effects occurring. Study 2 further showed that the "overestimation" resulted in significantly increased ratings of perceived severity of side effects and risk to health, as well as significantly reduced ratings of intention to comply, compared with those for people who received the probability information in numerical form. Conclusion - While it is recognised that the current findings require replication in a clinical setting, the European and national authorities should suspend the use of the EU recommended terms until further research is available to allow the use of an evidence-based approach.

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.

Provision of information about drug side-effects to patients

To make informed decisions about taking medicinal drugs, people need accurate information about side-effects. A European Union guideline now recommends use of qualitative descriptions for five bands of risk, ranging from very rare (affecting < 0·01% of the population), to very common (>10%). We did four studies of more than 750 people, whom we asked to estimate the probability of having a side-effect on the basis of qualitative and quantitative descriptions. Our results showed that qualitative descriptions led to gross overestimation of risk. Until further work is done on how patients taking the drugs interpret these terms, the terms should not be used in drug information leaflets.

Communicating information about medication side effects: effects on satisfaction, perceived risk to health, and intention to comply

Previous research has shown that people's evaluations of explanations about medication and their intention to comply with the prescription are detrimentally affected by the inclusion of information about adverse side effects of the medication. The present study (Experiment 1) examined which particular aspects of information about side effects (their number, likelihood of occurrence, or severity) are likely to have the greatest effect on people's satisfaction, perception of risk, and intention to comply, as well as how the information about side effects interacts with information about the severity of the illness for which the medication was prescribed. Across all measures, it was found that manipulations of side effect severity had the greatest impact on people's judgements, followed by manipulations of side effect likelihood and then number. Experiments 2 and 3 examined how the severity of the diagnosed illness and information about negative side effects interact with two other factors suggested by Social Cognition models of health behaviour to affect people's intention to comply: namely, perceived benefit of taking the prescribed drug, and the perceived level of control over preventing or alleviating the side effects. It was found that providing people with a statement about the positive benefit of taking the medication had relatively little effect on judgements, whereas informing them about how to reduce the chances of experiencing the side effects had an overall beneficial effect on ratings.

Adverse gastrointestinal effects of arginine and related amino acids

Oral supplements of arginine and citrulline increase local nitric oxide (NO production in the small intestine and this may be harmful under certain circumstances. Gastrointestinal toxicity was therefore reviewed with respect to the intestinal physiology of arginine, citrulline, ornithine, and cystine (which shares the same transporter) and the many clinical trials of supplements of the dibasic amino acids or N-acetylcysteine (NAC. The human intestinal dibasic amino acid transport system has high affinity and low capacity. L-Arginine (but not lysine, ornithine, or D-arginine) induces water and electrolyte secretion that is mediated by NO, which acts as an absorbagogue at low levels and as a secretagogue at high levels. The action of many laxatives is NO mediated and there are reports of diarrhea following oral administration of arginine or ornithine ihine. The clinical data cover a wide span of arginine intakes f rom 3 g/d to > 100 g/d, but the standard of reporting adverse effects (e.g. nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea) was variable. Single doses of 3-6 g rarely provoked side effects and healthy athletes appeared to be more susceptible than diabetic patients to gastrointestinal symptoms at individual doses >9 g. This may relate to an effect of disease on gastrointestinal motility and pharmacokinetics. Most side effects of arginine and NAC occurred at single doses of >9 g in adults >140 mg/kg) often when part of a daily regime of similar to>30 g/d (>174 mmol/d). In the case of arginine, this compares with the laxative threshold of the nonabsorbed disaccharide alcohol, lactitol (74 g or 194 mmol). Adverse effects seemed dependent on the dosage regime and disappeared if divided doses were ingested (unlike lactitol). Large single doses of poorly absorbed amino acids seem to provoke diarrhea. More research is needed to refine dosage strategies that reduce this phenomenon. It is suggested that dipeptide forms of arginine may meet this criterion.

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.

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.

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.

Preventing drug related morbidity: a process for facilitating changes in practice

Aim: To describe how quantitative data obtained from applying a series of indicators for preventable drug related morbidity (PDRM) in the electronic patient record in English general practice can be used to facilitate changes aimed at helping to improve medicines management. Design: A multidisciplinary discussion forum held at each practice facilitated by a clinical researcher. Subjects and setting: Eight English general practices. Outcome measures: Issues discussed at the multidisciplinary discussion forum and ideas generated by practices for tackling these issues. Progress made by practices after 1, 3, and 6 months. Results: A number of clinical issues were raised by the practices and ideas for moving them forward were discussed. The issues that were easiest and most straightforward to deal with (for example, reviewing specific patient groups) were quickly addressed in most instances. Practices were less likely to have taken steps towards addressing issues at a systems level. Conclusions: Data generated from applying PDRM indicators can be used to facilitate practice-wide discussion on medicines management. Different practices place different priority levels on the issues they wish to pursue. Individual practice "ownership'' of these, together with having a central committed figure at the practice, is key to the success of the process.

Causes of preventable drug-related hospital admissions: a qualitative study

Objective: To explore the causes of preventable drug-related admissions (PDRAs) to hospital. Design: Qualitative case studies using semi-structured interviews and medical record review; data analysed using a framework derived from Reason's model of organisational accidents and cascade analysis. Participants: 62 participants, including 18 patients, 8 informal carers, 17 general practitioners, 12 community pharmacists, 3 practice nurses and 4 other members of healthcare staff, involved in events leading up to the patients' hospital admissions. Setting: Nottingham, UK. Results: PDRAs are associated with problems at multiple stages in the medication use process, including prescribing, dispensing, administration, monitoring and help seeking. The main causes of these problems are communication failures ( between patients and healthcare professionals and different groups of healthcare professionals) and knowledge gaps ( about drugs and patients' medical and medication histories). The causes of PDRAs are similar irrespective of whether the hospital admission is associated with a prescribing, monitoring or patient adherence problem. Conclusions: The causes of PDRAs are multifaceted and complex. Technical solutions to PDRAs will need to take account of this complexity and are unlikely to be sufficient on their own. Interventions targeting the human causes of PDRAs are also necessary - for example, improving methods of communication.

A qualitative exploration of the underlying causes of preventable drug-related morbidity in primary care, resulting in hospitalisation

This study has explored the underlying causes of preventable drug-related admissions to hospital, from primary care through semi-structured interviews and review of patients’ medical records. Analysis of the data has revealed that communication failures between different groups of healthcare professionals and between healthcare professionals and patients contribute to preventable drug-related admissions, as do knowledge gaps about medication in both healthcare professionals and patients. In addition, working conditions for community pharmacists severely limit their ability to effectively act as a safety barrier to patients receiving inappropriate medication. Limitations include heavy workloads, lack of access to patients’ clinical information, poor relationships with general practitioners and time restrictions. The results of this study represent an important addition to our understanding of the contribution of human error as an underlying cause of preventable drug-related morbidity, and the factors which contribute to errors occurring in the primary healthcare setting.