Official warnings on thromboembolism risk with oral contraceptives fail to inform users adequately

Following the 1995 “pill scare” relating to the risk of venous thrombosis from taking second- or third-generation oral contraceptives, the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) withdrew their earlier recommended restrictions on the use of third-generation pills and published recommended wording to be used in patient information leaflets. However, the effectiveness of this wording has not been tested. An empirical study (with 186 pill users, past users, and non-users) was conducted to assess understanding, based on this wording, of the absolute and relative risk of thrombosis in pill users and in pregnancy. The results showed that less than 12% of women in the (higher education) group fully understood the absolute levels of risk from taking the pill and from being pregnant. Relative risk was also poorly understood, with less than 40% of participants showing full understanding, and 20% showing no understanding. We recommend that the CSM revisit the wording currently provided to millions of women in the UK.

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.