The benefits of providing benefit information in a patient information leaflet

Objective: To examine the effects of providing two different types of written information about medicine benefits in a patient information leaflet (PIL). Setting: Participants were 358 adult volunteers from the general population recruited from a London railway station and central Reading. Method: The study used a controlled empirical methodology in which people were given a hypothetical, but realistic, scenario about visiting their doctor and being prescribed medication. They then read an information leaflet about the medicine that contained neither, one, or both benefit statements, and finally completed a number of Likert rating scales. Outcome measures included perceived satisfaction and helpfulness of the information, effectiveness and appropriateness of the medicine, benefit and risk to health, and intention to comply. Key findings: Both types of benefit information led to significantly higher ratings on all of the measures taken. Conclusions: Provision of a relatively short ‘benefit’ statement can significantly improve people’s judgements and intention to take a medicine. The findings are important and timely as the European Union is currently considering reviewing their regulations to allow for the inclusion of limited non-promotional benefit information in PILs.

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.

Interpretation of recommended risk terms: differences between doctors and lay people

Objectives: To examine doctors' (Experiment 1) and doctors' and lay people's (Experiment 2) interpretations of two sets of recommended verbal labels for conveying information about side effects incidence rates. Method: Both studies used a controlled empirical methodology in which participants were presented with a hypothetical, but realistic, scenario involving a prescribed medication that was said to be associated with either mild or severe side effects. The probability of each side effect was described using one of the five descriptors advocated by the European Union (Experiment 1) or one of the six descriptors advocated in Calman's risk scale (Experiment 2), and study participants were required to estimate (numerically) the probability of each side effect occurring. Key findings: Experiment 1 showed that the doctors significantly overestimated the risk of side effects occurring when interpreting the five EU descriptors, compared with the assigned probability ranges. Experiment 2 showed that both groups significantly overestimated risk when given the six Calman descriptors, although the degree of overestimation was not as great for the doctors as for the lay people. Conclusion: On the basis of our findings, we argue that we are still a long way from achieving a standardised language of risk for use by both professionals and the general public, although there might be more potential for use of standardised terms among professionals. In the meantime, the EU and other regulatory bodies and health professionals should be very cautious about advocating the use of particular verbal labels for describing medication side effects.

Over the counter medicines and the need for immediate action: a further evaluation of European Commission recommended wordings for communicating risk

A study examined people's interpretation of European Commission (EC) recommended verbal descriptors for risk of medicine side effects, and actions to take if they do occur. Members of the general public were presented with a fictitious (but realistic) scenario about suffering from a stiff neck, visiting the local pharmacy and purchasing an over the counter (OTC) medicine (Ibruprofen). The medicine came with an information leaflet which included information about the medicine's side effects, their risk of occurrence, and recommended actions to take if adverse effects are experienced. Probability of occurrence was presented numerically (6%) or verbally, using the recommended EC descriptor (common). Results showed that, in line with findings of our earlier work with prescribed medicines, participants significantly overestimated side effect risk. Furthermore, the differences in interpretation were reflected in their judgements of satisfaction, side effect severity, risk to health, and intention to take the medicine. Finally, we observed no significant difference between people's interpretation of the recommended action descriptors ('immediately' and 'as soon as possible'). (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Fruit polyphenols and CVD risk: a review of human intervention studies.

Epidemiological evidence suggests that polyphenols may, in part, explain the cardioprotective properties of fruits. This review aims to summarise the evidence for the effects of fruit polyphenols on four risk factors of CVD: platelet function, blood pressure, vascular function and blood lipids. This review includes human dietary intervention studies investigating fruits and their polyphenols. There was some evidence to suggest that fruits containing relatively high concentrations of flavonols, anthocyanins and procyanindins, such as pomegranate, purple grapes and berries, were effective at reducing CVD risk factors, particularly with respect to anti-hypertensive effects, inhibition of platelet aggregation and increasing endothelial-dependent vasodilation than other fruits investigated. Flavanone-rich fruits, such as oranges and grapefruits, were reported to have hypocholesterolaemic effects, with little impact on other risk factors being examined. However, the evidence was limited, inconsistent and often inconclusive. This is in part due to the heterogeneity in the design of studies, the lack of controls, the relatively short intervention periods and low power in several studies. Details of the polyphenol content of the fruits investigated were also omitted in some studies, negating comparison of data. It is recommended that large, well-powered, long-term human dietary intervention studies investigating a wider range of fruits are required to confirm these observations. Investigations into the potential synergistic effects of polyphenols on a combination of CVD risk markers, dose–response relationships and standardisation in methodology would facilitate the comparison of studies and also provide valuable information on the types of fruits which could confer protection against CVD.

The SAFE FOODS framework for improved risk analysis of foods

Three main changes to current risk analysis processes are proposed to improve their transparency, openness, and accountability. First, the addition of a formal framing stage would allow interested parties, experts and officials to work together as needed to gain an initial shared understanding of the issue, the objectives of regulatory action, and alternative risk management measures. Second, the scope of the risk assessment is expanded to include the assessment of health and environmental benefits as well as risks, and the explicit consideration of economic- and social-impacts of risk management action and their distribution. Moreover approaches were developed for deriving improved information from genomic, proteomic and metabolomic profiling methods and for probabilistic modelling of health impacts for risk assessment purposes. Third, in an added evaluation stage, interested parties, experts, and officials may compare and weigh the risks, costs, and benefits and their distribution. As part of a set of recommendations on risk communication, we propose that reports on each stage should be made public.

An examination of the complementary volume–volatility information theories

The volume–volatility relationship during the dissemination stages of information flow is examined by analyzing various theories relating volume and volatility as complementary rather than competing models. The mixture of distributions hypothesis, sequential arrival of information hypothesis, the dispersion of beliefs hypothesis, and the noise trader hypothesis all add to the understanding of how volume and volatility interact for different types of futures traders. An integrated picture of the volume–volatility relationship is provided by investigating the dynamic linear and nonlinear associations between volatility and the volume of informed (institutional) and uninformed (the general public) traders. In particular, the trading behavior explanation for the persistence of futures volatility, the effect of the timing of private information arrival, and the response of institutional traders to excess noise trading risk is examined

The impact of news on measures of undiversifiable risk: evidence from the UK stock market

Using UK equity index data, this paper considers the impact of news on time varying measures of beta, the usual measure of undiversifiable risk. The empirical model implies that beta depends on news about the market and news about the sector. The asymmetric response of beta to news about the market is consistent across all sectors considered. Recent research is divided as to whether abnormalities in equity returns arise from changes in expected returns in an efficient market or over-reactions to new information. The evidence suggests that such abnormalities may be due to changes in expected returns caused by time-variation and asymmetry in beta.

Postprandial lipemia and cardiovascular disease risk: interrelationships between dietary, physiological and genetic determinants

Although the independence of the association and causality has not been fully established, non-fasting (postprandial) triglyceride (TG) concentrations have emerged as a clinically significant cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor. In the current review, findings from three insightful prospective studies in the area, namely the Women's Health Study, the Copenhagen City Heart Study and the Norwegian Counties Study, are discussed. An overview is provided as to the likely etiological basis for the association between postprandial TG and CVD, with a focus on both lipid and non-lipid (inflammation, hemostasis and vascular function) risk factors. The impact of various lifestyle and physiological determinants are considered, in particular genetic variation and meal fat composition. Furthermore, although data is limited some information is provided as to the relative and interactive impact of a number of modulators of lipemia. It is evident that relative to age, gender and body mass index (known modulators of postprandial lipemia), the contribution of identified gene variants to the heterogeneity observed in the postprandial response is likely to be relatively small. Finally, we highlight the need for the development of a standardised ‘fat tolerance test’ for use in clinical trials, to allow the integration and comparison of data from individual studies

A pharmacist-led information technology intervention for medication errors (PINCER): a multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background: Medication errors are common in primary care and are associated with considerable risk of patient harm. We tested whether a pharmacist-led, information technology-based intervention was more effective than simple feedback in reducing the number of patients at risk of measures related to hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring of medicines 6 months after the intervention. Methods: In this pragmatic, cluster randomised trial general practices in the UK were stratified by research site and list size, and randomly assigned by a web-based randomisation service in block sizes of two or four to one of two groups. The practices were allocated to either computer-generated simple feedback for at-risk patients (control) or a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER), composed of feedback, educational outreach, and dedicated support. The allocation was masked to general practices, patients, pharmacists, researchers, and statisticians. Primary outcomes were the proportions of patients at 6 months after the intervention who had had any of three clinically important errors: non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) prescribed to those with a history of peptic ulcer without co-prescription of a proton-pump inhibitor; β blockers prescribed to those with a history of asthma; long-term prescription of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or loop diuretics to those 75 years or older without assessment of urea and electrolytes in the preceding 15 months. The cost per error avoided was estimated by incremental cost-eff ectiveness analysis. This study is registered with Controlled-Trials.com, number ISRCTN21785299. Findings: 72 general practices with a combined list size of 480 942 patients were randomised. At 6 months’ follow-up, patients in the PINCER group were significantly less likely to have been prescribed a non-selective NSAID if they had a history of peptic ulcer without gastroprotection (OR 0∙58, 95% CI 0∙38–0∙89); a β blocker if they had asthma (0∙73, 0∙58–0∙91); or an ACE inhibitor or loop diuretic without appropriate monitoring (0∙51, 0∙34–0∙78). PINCER has a 95% probability of being cost eff ective if the decision-maker’s ceiling willingness to pay reaches £75 per error avoided at 6 months. Interpretation: The PINCER intervention is an effective method for reducing a range of medication errors in general practices with computerised clinical records. Funding: Patient Safety Research Portfolio, Department of Health, England.

Farmers’ attitudes to disease risk management in England: a comparative analysis of sheep and pig farmers

The UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) identified practices to reduce the risk of animal disease outbreaks. We report on the response of sheep and pig farmers in England to promotion of these practices. A conceptual framework was established from research on factors influencing adoption of animal health practices, linking knowledge, attitudes, social influences and perceived constraints to the implementation of specific practices. Qualitative data were collected from nine sheep and six pig enterprises in 2011. Thematic analysis explored attitudes and responses to the proposed practices, and factors influencing the likelihood of implementation. Most feel they are doing all they can reasonably do to minimise disease risk and that practices not being implemented are either not relevant or ineffective. There is little awareness and concern about risk from unseen threats. Pig farmers place more emphasis than sheep farmers on controlling wildlife, staff and visitor management and staff training. The main factors that influence livestock farmers’ decision on whether or not to implement a specific disease risk measure are: attitudes to, and perceptions of, disease risk; attitudes towards the specific measure and its efficacy; characteristics of the enterprise which they perceive as making a measure impractical; previous experience of a disease or of the measure; and the credibility of information and advice. Great importance is placed on access to authoritative information with most seeing vets as the prime source to interpret generic advice from national bodies in the local context. Uptake of disease risk measures could be increased by: improved risk communication through the farming press and vets to encourage farmers to recognise hidden threats; dissemination of credible early warning information to sharpen farmers’ assessment of risk; and targeted information through training events, farming press, vets and other advisers, and farmer groups, tailored to the different categories of livestock farmer.

Credit risk in covered bonds

Covered bonds are a promising alternative for prime mortgage securitization. In this paper, we explore risk premia in the covered bond market and particularly investigate whether and how credit risk is priced. In extant literature, yield spreads between high-quality covered bonds and government bonds are often interpreted as pure liquidity premia. In contrast, we show that although liquidity is important, it is not the exclusive risk factor. Using a hand-collected data set of cover pool information, we find that the credit quality of the cover assets is an important determinant of covered bond yield spreads. This effect is particularly strong in times of financial turmoil and has a significant influence on the issuer's refinancing cost.

Predicting outcomes following cognitive behavior therapy in child anxiety disorders: the influence of genetic, demographic and clinical information

Background. Within a therapeutic gene by environment (GxE) framework, we recently demonstrated that variation in the Serotonin Transporter Promoter Polymorphism; 5HTTLPR and marker rs6330 in Nerve Growth Factor gene; NGF is associated with poorer outcomes following cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) for child anxiety disorders. The aim of this study was to explore one potential means of extending the translational reach of G×E data in a way that may be clinically informative. We describe a ‘risk-index’ approach combining genetic, demographic and clinical data and test its ability to predict diagnostic outcome following CBT in anxious children. Method. DNA and clinical data were collected from 384 children with a primary anxiety disorder undergoing CBT. We tested our risk model in five cross-validation training sets. Results. In predicting treatment outcome, six variables had a minimum mean beta value of 0.5: 5HTTLPR, NGF rs6330, gender, primary anxiety severity, comorbid mood disorder and comorbid externalising disorder. A risk index (range 0-8) constructed from these variables had moderate predictive ability (AUC = .62-.69) in this study. Children scoring high on this index (5-8) were approximately three times as likely to retain their primary anxiety disorder at follow-up as compared to those children scoring 2 or less. Conclusion. Significant genetic, demographic and clinical predictors of outcome following CBT for anxiety-disordered children were identified. Combining these predictors within a risk-index could be used to identify which children are less likely to be diagnosis free following CBT alone or thus require longer or enhanced treatment. The ‘risk-index’ approach represents one means of harnessing the translational potential of G×E data.