What do patients want to know about their medicines, and what do doctors want to tell them?: a comparative study

A two phase study is reported. In the first phase, we asked a number of doctors to rate a list of information categories (identified by Berry, Gillie and Banbury 1995) in terms of how important they felt it was for the items to be included in an explanation to a patient about a drug prescription. In the second phase, we presented a large sample of people with a scenario about visiting their doctor and being prescribed medication, together with an explanation about the prescription which was said to be provided by the doctor. Four different explanations were compared, which were either based on what people in our earlier study wanted to know about drug prescriptions or on what the doctors thought it was important lo tell them. We also manipulated whether or not the explanations conveyed negative information (e.g. about the possible side effects of the medication). The results showed that people 'preferred' the explanations based on what the participants in the earlier study wanted to know about their medicines, rather than those based on what the doctors thought they should be told. They also 'preferred' the explanations that did not convey negative information, rather than those that did convey some negative information. In addition, the inclusion of negative information affected ratings of likely compliance with the prescribed medication.

Comparing nurses’ and doctors’ views of nurse prescribing: a questionnaire survey

Nurses have successfully adopted the role of prescriber in numerous health care settings in the UK. Existing research has not addressed how Nurse Independent and Nurse Supplementary Prescribers compare with doctors in terms of the perceived advantages and disadvantages of nurse prescribing, nor has the perceived importance of nurses providing patients with an explanation about their medicines been established. The current study utilized a random sample of 31 qualified Nurse Independent and Nurse Supplementary Prescribers and 30 general practitioners who self-completed a written questionnaire in an independent groups design. The study establishes nurses’ and doctors’ perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of independent and supplementary nurse prescribing and provides some indication of the importance that nurses and doctors place on nurses providing an explanation about medicines, and the categories of information perceived to be important.

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.

The impact of the medical speciality in primary health-care problem solving in Belo Horizonte, Brazil: homeopaths versus family doctors: a preliminary quantitative study

Introduction: This research project examined influence of the doctors' speciality on primary health care (PHC) problem solving in Belo Horizonte (BH) Brazil, comparing homeopathic with family health doctors (FH), from the management's and the patients' viewpoint. In BH, both FH and homeopathic doctors work in PHC. The index of resolvability (IR) is used to compare resolution of problems by doctors. Methods: The present research compared IR, using official data from the Secretariat of Health and test requests made by the doctors and 482 structured interviews with patients. A total of 217,963 consultations by 14 homeopaths and 67 FH doctors between 1 July 2006 and 30 June 2007 were analysed. Results: The results show significant differences greater problem resolution by homeopaths compared to FH doctors. Conclusion: In BH, the medical speciality, homeopathy or FH, has an impact on problem solving, both from the managers' and the patients' point of view. Homeopaths request fewer tests and have better IR compared with FH doctors. Specialisation in homeopathy is an independent positive factor in problem solving at PHC level in BH, Brazil. Homeopathy (2012) 101, 44-50.

Are prescribing doctors sensitive to the price that their patients have to pay in the Spanish National Health System?

[EN] Background This study aims to design an empirical test on the sensitivity of the prescribing doctors to the price afforded for the patient, and to apply it to the population data of primary care dispensations for cardiovascular disease and mental illness in the Spanish National Health System (NHS). Implications for drug policies are discussed. Methods We used population data of 17 therapeutic groups of cardiovascular and mental illness drugs aggregated by health areas to obtain 1424 observations ((8 cardiovascular groups * 70 areas) + (9 psychotropics groups * 96 areas)). All drugs are free for pensioners. For non-pensioner patients 10 of the 17 therapeutic groups have a reduced copayment (RC) status of only 10% of the price with a ceiling of €2.64 per pack, while the remaining 7 groups have a full copayment (FC) rate of 40%. Differences in the average price among dispensations for pensioners and non-pensioners were modelled with multilevel regression models to test the following hypothesis: 1) in FC drugs there is a significant positive difference between the average prices of drugs prescribed to pensioners and non-pensioners; 2) in RC drugs there is no significant price differential between pensioner and non-pensioner patients; 3) the price differential of FC drugs prescribed to pensioners and non-pensioners is greater the higher the price of the drugs. Results The average monthly price of dispensations to pensioners and non-pensioners does not differ for RC drugs, but for FC drugs pensioners get more expensive dispensations than non-pensioners (estimated difference of €9.74 by DDD and month). There is a positive and significant effect of the drug price on the differential price between pensioners and non-pensioners. For FC drugs, each additional euro of the drug price increases the differential by nearly half a euro (0.492). We did not find any significant differences in the intensity of the price effect among FC therapeutic groups. Conclusions Doctors working in the Spanish NHS seem to be sensitive to the price that can be afforded by patients when they fill in prescriptions, although alternative hypothesis could also explain the results found.

Communication about standard treatment options and clinical trials: can we teach doctors new skills to improve patient outcomes?

BACKGROUND: The International Breast Cancer Study Group conducted a phase III trial in Australian/New Zealand (ANZ) and Swiss/German/Austrian (SGA) centres on training doctors in clear and ethical information delivery about treatment options and strategies to encourage shared decision making. METHODS: Medical, surgical, gynaecological and radiation oncologists, and their patients for whom adjuvant breast cancer therapy was indicated, were eligible. Doctors were randomised to participate in a workshop with standardised teaching material and role playing. Patients were recruited in the experimental and control groups before and after the workshop. RESULTS: In ANZ centres, 21 eligible doctors recruited a total of 304 assessable patients. In SGA centres, 41 doctors recruited 390 patients. The training was well accepted. There was no overall effect on patient decisional conflict (primary endpoint) 2 weeks after the consultation. Overall, patients were satisfied with their treatment decision, their consultation and their doctors' consultation skills. Considerable variation was observed in patient outcomes between SGA and ANZ centres; the effect sizes of the intervention were marginal (<0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision making remains a challenge. A sustained training effect may require more intensive training tailored to the local setting. Cross-cultural differences need attention in conducting trials on communication interventions.