Factors Influencing Preferences and Responses Towards Drug Safety Communications:A Conjoint Experiment Among Hospital-Based Healthcare Professionals in the Netherlands

Introduction Healthcare professionals (HCPs) are informed about new drug safety issues through Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs). The influence of DHPC content on the impact of the communication is unclear. Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the effect of content elements 'frequency of the safety issue', 'seriousness of the safety issue', 'need to take action', 'life span of drug involved' and 'type of evidence supporting the safety issue' on hospital-based HCPs' preferences and responses towards DHPCs. Methods A survey study including a conjoint experiment was performed among hospital-based HCPs in the Netherlands. Hypothetical DHPCs varying on the five content elements were constructed. Each respondent received eight out of 16 hypothetical DHPCs and was asked about (1) importance to be informed (fixed-point scale), (2) preferred communication timing (multiple options) and (3) their stated actions (multiple options). Associations were tested using generalized linear mixed models. Results In total, 178 HCPs participated. DHPCs concerning more frequent or serious safety issues, or requiring action, were associated with a higher perceived importance to be informed and a preference for immediate communication. Periodic communication was preferred for DPHCs concerning less frequent or serious safety issues. The most commonly stated action was to discuss the DHPC with colleagues. Monitoring was common when this was recommended. High frequency and seriousness were associated with more prescribing-related actions. Conclusion Frequency and seriousness of the safety issue and the recommended action are likely to influence the impact of DHPCs. The timing of communication could be tailored depending on the content, where less urgent safety issues might be communicated periodically

Drug Safety Issues Covered by Lay Media:A Cohort Study of Direct Healthcare Provider Communications Sent between 2001 and 2015 in The Netherlands

Background: Some drug safety issues communicated through direct healthcare professional communications (DHPCs) receive substantial media coverage, while others do not. Objectives: The objective of this study was to assess the extent of coverage of drug safety issues that have been communicated through DHPCs in newspapers and social media. A secondary aim was to explore which determinants may be associated with media coverage. Methods: Newspaper articles covering drug safety issues communicated through 387 DHPCs published between 2001 and 2015 were retrieved from LexisNexis Academic™. Social media postings were retrieved from Coosto™ for drugs included in 220 DHPCs published between 2010 and 2015. Coverage of DHPCs by newspapers and social media was assessed during the 2-month and 14-day time periods following issuance of the DHPC, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess potential DHPC- and drug-related determinants of media coverage. Results: 41 (10.6%) DHPC safety issues were covered in newspaper articles. Newspaper coverage was associated with drugs without a specialist indication [adjusted odds ratio 5.32; 95% confidence interval (2.64–10.73)]. Negative associations were seen for time since market approval [3–5 years 0.30; (0.11–0.82), 6–11 years 0.18; (0.06–0.58)] and year of the DHPC [0.88; (0.81–0.96)]. In the social media, 180 (81.8%) drugs mentioned in 220 DHPCs were covered. Social media coverage was associated with drugs without a specialist indication [6.92; (1.56–30.64)], and for DHPCs communicating clinical safety issues [5.46; (2.03–14.66)]. Conclusions: Newspapers covered a small proportion of DHPC safety issues only. Most drugs mentioned in DHPCs were covered in social media. Coverage in both media were higher for drugs without a specialist indication

The validity of dementia diagnoses in routinely collected electronic health records in the United Kingdom: A systematic review

Purpose: The purpose of the study is to assess the validity of codes or algorithms used to identify dementia in UK electronic health record (EHR) primary care and hospitalisation databases. Methods: Relevant studies were identified by searching the MEDLINE/EMBASE databases from inception to June 2018, hand-searching reference lists, and consulting experts. The search strategy included synonyms for “Dementia”, “Europe”, and “EHR”. Studies were included if they validated dementia diagnoses in UK primary care or hospitalisation databases, irrespective of validation method used. The Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess risk of bias. Results: From 1469 unique records, 14 relevant studies were included. Thirteen validated individual diagnoses against a reference standard, reporting high estimates of validity. Most reported only the positive predictive value (PPV), with estimates ranging between 0.09 and 1.0 and 0.62 and 0.85 in primary care and hospitalisation databases, respectively. One study performed a rate comparison, indicating good generalisability of dementia diagnoses in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database to the UK population. Studies were of low methodological quality. As studies were not comparable, no summary validity estimates were produced. Conclusion: While heterogenous across studies, reported validity estimates were generally high. However, the credibility of these estimates is limited by the methodological quality of studies, primarily resulting from insufficient blinding of researchers interpreting the reference test. Inadequate reporting, particularly of the specific codes validated, hindered comparison of estimates across studies. Future validation studies should make use of more robust reference tests, follow established reporting guidelines, and calculate all measures of validity