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

Perceptions of the risks and benefits of medicines in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and other painful musculoskeletal conditions

Objectives. To examine beliefs about medication risks and benefits in patients attending a specialist rheumatology clinic for pain-related conditions. Methods. Eighty-one patients (37 first attendees and 44 existing clinic patients) completed a written questionnaire which asked about current treatments, perceived effectiveness, main risks and benefits, and compliance. Results. Existing clinic patients perceived medications to be more effective and more risky than did the new patients, although both groups rated risks to be moderately low. The main perceived risks were adverse side-effects, although patients reported only moderately low levels of experiencing such effects. Conclusions. In contrast to some other studies, many of our patients were aware of medication risks and were prepared to accept them provided benefits were seen to be high. Existing clinic patients were more aware of risks and benefits, and reported higher compliance levels than new patients, possibly as a result of the hospital education programme. Future studies should evaluate the effects of the programme more systematically

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

Attitudes towards, and information needs in relation to, supplementary nurse prescribing in the UK: an empirical study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The main aim of the study is to assess the views of people, who have not yet experienced nurse prescribing, to determine their level of confidence in nurse as opposed to doctor prescribing, effects on likely adherence and concerns that they might have. Additionally, the extent to which people would want nurses to provide an explanation for medicine choice and the type of information wanted was examined. BACKGROUND: Nurse prescribing has been successfully implemented in the UK in a number of healthcare settings. Existing research has not addressed effects on people's confidence and likely adherence, nor have people's information needs been established. However, we know that inadequate medicines information provision by health professionals is one of the largest causes of patient dissatisfaction. METHODS: A convenience sample of 74 members of the general population self-completed a written questionnaire. RESULTS: In general, people would have confidence in the nurse having prescribed the best medicine and say that they would be very likely to take the medicine. Concerns identified did not specifically relate to the nurses' status. Support is provided for the importance of nurses providing a full explanation about medicines, and some indication about which categories of information should be included. Information about medication side effects was most wanted by participants. CONCLUSIONS: Independent and Supplementary Prescribing are pivotal to modernizing the NHS. The current study establishes people's initial views and concerns about nurse prescribing and assesses information needs. Support for initiating follow-on studies with particular patient groups is also provided. IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: People who have not yet experienced nurse prescribing are, in general, positive about nurses adopting this role. It is important that nurses provide appropriate information about the prescribed medicines, in a form that can be understood. This should include information about 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

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

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