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.

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.

An exploration of the drivers to bio-security collective action among a sample of UK cattle and sheep farmers

At present, collective action regarding bio-security among UK cattle and sheep farmers is rare. Despite the occurrence of catastrophic livestock diseases such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and foot and mouth disease (FMD), within recent decades, there are few national or local farmer-led animal health schemes. To explore the reasons for this apparent lack of interest, we utilised a socio-psychological approach to disaggregate the cognitive, emotive and contextual factors driving bio-security behaviour among cattle and sheep farmers in the United Kingdom (UK). In total, we interviewed 121 farmers in South-West England and Wales. The main analytical tools included a content, cluster and logistic regression analysis. The results of the content analysis illustrated apparent 'dissonance' between bio-security attitudes and behaviour.(1) Despite the heavy toll animal disease has taken on the agricultural economy, most study participants were dismissive of the many measures associated with bio-security. Justification for this lack of interest was largely framed in relation to the collective attribution or blame for the disease threats themselves. Indeed, epidemic diseases were largely related to external actors and agents. Reasons for outbreaks included inadequate border control, in tandem with ineffective policies and regulations. Conversely, endemic livestock disease was viewed as a problem for 'bad' farmers and not an issue for those individuals who managed their stock well. As such, there was little utility in forming groups to address what was largely perceived as an individual problem. Further, we found that attitudes toward bio-security did not appear to be influenced by any particular source of information per se. While strong negative attitudes were found toward specific sources of bio-security information, e.g. government leaflets, these appear to simply reflect widely held beliefs. In relation to actual bio-security behaviours, the logistic regression analysis revealed no significant difference between in-scheme and out of scheme farmers. We concluded that in order to support collective action with regard to bio-security, messages need to be reframed and delivered from a neutral source. Efforts to support group formation must also recognise and address the issues relating to perceptions of social connectedness among the communities involved. (c) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Description of a multifaceted strategy for recruiting general practitioners and community pharmacists to talk about medication errors

Objective: To describe the use of a multifaceted strategy for recruiting general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists to talk about medication errors which have resulted in preventable drug-related admissions to hospital. This is a potentially sensitive subject with medicolegal implications. Setting: Four primary care trusts and one teaching hospital in the UK. Method: Letters were mailed to community pharmacists and general practitioners asking for provisional consent to be interviewed and permission to contact them again should a patient be admitted to hospital as a result of a medication error. In addition, GPs were asked for permission to approach their patients should they be admitted to hospital. A multifaceted approach to recruitment was used including gaining support for the study from professional defence agencies and local champions. Key findings: Eighty-five percent (310/385) of GPs and 62% (93/149) of community pharmacists responded to the letters. Eighty-five percent (266/310) of GPs who responded and 81% (75/93) of community pharmacists who responded gave provisional consent to participate in interviews. All GPs (14 out of 14) and community pharmacists (10 out of 10) who were subsequently asked to participate, when patients were admitted to hospital, agreed to be interviewed. Conclusion: The multifaceted approach to recruitment was associated with an impressive response when asking healthcare professionals to be interviewed about medication errors which have resulted in preventable drug-related morbidity.

Effect of priming cooperation or individualism on a collective and interdependent task: changeover speed in the 4 x 100-meter relay race

Priming effects of cooperation vs. individualism were investigated on changeover speed within a 4 x 100-m relay race. Ten teams of four adult beginner athletes ran two relays, a pretest race and an experimental race 3 weeks later. Just before the experimental race, athletes were primed with either cooperation or individualism through a scrambled-sentence task. Comparing to the pretest performance, cooperation priming improved baton speed in the exchange zone (+30 cm/s). Individualism priming did not impair changeover performance. The boundary conditions of priming effects applied to collective and interdependent tasks are discussed within the implicit coordination framework.

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.

Communicating information about medication: the benefits of making it personal

Two experiments, using a controlled empirical methodology, investigated the effects of presenting information about medicines using a more personalised style of expression. In both studies, members of the general public were given a hypothetical scenario about visiting the doctor, being diagnosed with a particular illness, and being prescribed a medication. They were also given a written explanation about the medicine and were asked to provide ratings on a number of measures, including satisfaction, perceived risk to health, and intention to comply. In Experiment 1 the explanation focused only on possible side effects of the medicine, whereas in Experiment 2 a fuller explanation was provided, which included information about the illness, prescribed drug, its dosage and contraindications as well as its side effects. In both studies, use of a more personalised style resulted in significantly higher ratings of satisfaction and significantly lower ratings of likelihood of side effects occurring and of perceived risk to health. In Experiment 2 it also led to significantly improved recall for the written information.

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.