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.

Modelling the likely impact of healthy eating guidelines on agricultural production and land use in England and Wales

Quadratic programming techniques were applied to household food consumption data in England and Wales to estimate likely changes in diet under healthy eating guidelines, and the consequences this would have on agriculture and land use in England and Wales. The first step entailed imposing nutrient restrictions on food consumption following dietary recommendations suggested by the UK Department of Health. The resulting diet was used, in a second step as a proxy for demand in agricultural commodities, to test the impact of such a scenario on food production and land use in England and Wales and the impacts of this on agricultural landscapes. Results of the diet optimisation indicated a large drop in consumption of foods rich in saturated fats and sugar, essentially cheese and sugar-based products, along with lesser cuts of fat and meat products. Conversely, consumption of fruit and vegetables, cereals, and flour would increase to meet dietary fibre recommendations. Such a shift in demand would dramatically affect production patterns: the financial net margin of England and Wales agriculture would rise, due to increased production of high market value and high economic margin crops. Some regions would, however, be negatively affected, mostly those dependent on beef cattle and sheep production that could not benefit from an increased demand for cereals and horticultural crops. The effects of these changes would also be felt in upstream industries, such as animal feed suppliers. While arable dominated landscapes would be little affected, pastoral landscapes would suffer through loss of grazing management and, possibly, land abandonment, especially in upland areas.

Do in vivo terahertz imaging systems comply with safety guidelines?

Techniques for the coherent generation and detection of electromagnetic radiation in the far infrared, or terahertz, region of the electromagnetic spectrum have recently developed rapidly and may soon be applied for in vivo medical imaging. Both continuous wave and pulsed imaging systems are under development, with terahertz pulsed imaging being the more common method. Typically a pump and probe technique is used, with picosecond pulses of terahertz radiation generated from femtosecond infrared laser pulses, using an antenna or nonlinear crystal. After interaction with the subject either by transmission or reflection, coherent detection is achieved when the terahertz beam is combined with the probe laser beam. Raster scanning of the subject leads to an image data set comprising a time series representing the pulse at each pixel. A set of parametric images may be calculated, mapping the values of various parameters calculated from the shape of the pulses. A safety analysis has been performed, based on current guidelines for skin exposure to radiation of wavelengths 2.6 µm–20 mm (15 GHz–115 THz), to determine the maximum permissible exposure (MPE) for such a terahertz imaging system. The international guidelines for this range of wavelengths are drawn from two U.S. standards documents. The method for this analysis was taken from the American National Standard for the Safe Use of Lasers (ANSI Z136.1), and to ensure a conservative analysis, parameters were drawn from both this standard and from the IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (C95.1). The calculated maximum permissible average beam power was 3 mW, indicating that typical terahertz imaging systems are safe according to the current guidelines. Further developments may however result in systems that will exceed the calculated limit. Furthermore, the published MPEs for pulsed exposures are based on measurements at shorter wavelengths and with pulses of longer duration than those used in terahertz pulsed imaging systems, so the results should be treated with caution.

Are the NICE guidelines for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder being used in primary care?

This study aims to: 1) assess the proportion of General Practioners (GPs) who are aware of or who have read the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE; 2005a) guidelines for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), 2) compare this with the proportion of other mental health disorders found by previous research and 3) establish the prevalence of OCD in primary care. Questionnaires were sent to all GPs (n = 795) and practice managers (n = 157) in Berkshire and Buckinghamshire, South East England. These contained 19 questions and took 5 min to complete. After the first set of responses, larger practices were visited and telephoned to encourage further responses. The response rates were 10.1% from GPs and 19.1% from practice managers. In all, 48.7% of the GPs were aware of the NICE guidelines for OCD and 30.3% reported that they had read them – higher than for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, but lower than for depression. Of registered patients, 0.2% were diagnosed with OCD, lower than the 1.1% found in epidemiological studies.