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.

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.

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.

Demonstration models of the cost and benefits of BVD and Johne's contol on cattle farms

Demonstration models of the costs of BVD and Johnes in dairy and beef cattle and the costs and benefits of control have been developed. An example applied to BVD in dairy cattle is presented. Downloadable versions of the models, together with supporting material on how to use them are available to veterinarians from a dedicated website.

Demonstration models of the cost and benefits of BVD and Johne's contol on cattle farms

Demonstration models of the costs of BVD and Johnes in dairy and beef cattle and the costs and benefits of control have been developed. An example applied to BVD in dairy cattle is presented. Downloadable versions of the models, together with supporting material on how to use them are available to veterinarians from a dedicated website.

The costs and benefits of digital dermatitis control on UK dairy farms

Digital dermatitis is a significant problem in UK dairy herds and the cost to farmers has not yet been fully quantified. Under the current farm health planning initiative there is a need to demonstrate to farmers the costs and benefits of disease control. This paper presents the first attempt to quantify the costs and benefits of digital dermatitis control on UK dairy farms through the use of an interactive model.

Categories of GM risk-benefit perceptions and their antecedents

The stated benefits and perceived risks of genetic modification (GM) cover very diverse issues, such as food safety, world food security, and the environment, that may differentially affect consumer acceptance. In this research, we hypothesize that consumers perceive up to eight dimensions: risks to business (farmers, agribusiness, etc.), benefits to business, risks and benefits to the environment, risks and benefits to the developing world, and risks and benefits to self and family. Moral concerns are also recognized. Using data collected in 2002 in the United States, France, and the UK, we investigate these different dimensions. Second, we analyze the extent to which the dimensions of risk-benefit perceptions can be explained by general attitudes widely used to explain food purchase behavior (such as general attitude to the environment, to technology, etc.), as well as by perceived knowledge of GM, level of education, and trust in various sources of information. In all locations, the majority of consumers only perceive a medium level of risk from GM products. Attitude to technology is the most important attitude variable—those with a positive attitude to technology in general also have a positive attitude to GM technology. More Americans than Europeans fall into this category. Those who trust government and the food industry tend to think GM technology is less risky, whereas those who trust activists believe the opposite. Americans are more trusting of the former, Europeans of the latter. Level of education is positively associated with benefit perceptions and negatively associated with moral concerns. Location continues to play a limited independent role in explaining perceptions even after these factors have been taken into account.

Exploring costs and benefits of HACCP: a pilot study in the dairy and meat products industry in the European Union

Since 1995 the Directive 93/43/EEC prescribes the application of HACCP principles in food production. However, despite the major importance of food safety, there is a fundamental lack of information on the economic impact of this directive. This project aims to study costs and benefits of HACCP, including the impact of HACCP on public health. Due to the complexity of the issue, we propose to start with a pilot study, limited to dairy and meat products industry in NL, UK and I. Information will be obtained at two levels: production chain and public health. Integration of these results will result in recommendations at the levels of EU member states and industry for regulation and supporting measures, and in recommendations for an effective and efficient approach for a more comprehensive project on costs and benefits of HACCP, covering major parts of the food industry in EU member states.

Patients' understanding of risk associated with medication use: impact of European Commission guidelines and other risk scales

Patients want and need comprehensive and accurate information about their medicines so that they can participate in decisions about their healthcare: In particular, they require information about the likely risks and benefits that are associated with the different treatment options. However, to provide this information in a form that people can readily understand and use is a considerable challenge to healthcare professionals. One recent attempt to standardise the Language of risk has been to produce sets of verbal descriptors that correspond to specific probability ranges, such as those outlined in the European Commission (EC) Pharmaceutical Committee guidelines in 1998 for describing the incidence of adverse effects. This paper provides an overview of a number of studies involving members of the general public, patients, and hospital doctors, that evaluated the utility of the EC guideline descriptors (very common, common, uncommon, rare, very rare). In all studies it was found that people significantly over-estimated the likelihood of adverse effects occurring, given specific verbal descriptors. This in turn resulted in significantly higher ratings of their perceived risks to health and significantly lower ratings of their likelihood of taking the medicine. Such problems of interpretation are not restricted to the EC guideline descriptors. Similar levels of misinterpretation have also been demonstrated with two other recently advocated risk scales (Caiman's verbal descriptor scale and Barclay, Costigan and Davies' lottery scale). In conclusion, the challenge for risk communicators and for future research will be to produce a language of risk that is sufficiently flexible to take into account different perspectives, as well as changing circumstances and contexts of illness and its treatments. In the meantime, we urge the EC and other legislative bodies to stop recommending the use of specific verbal labels or phrases until there is a stronger evidence base to support their use.