Comparison of two methods of presenting risk information to patients about the side effects of medicines

Strategies for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and the population: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Health evidence needs to be communicated and disseminated in a manner that is clearly understood by decision-makers. As an inherent component of health knowledge translation, communicating results of scientific studies, effects of interventions and health risk estimates, in addition to understanding key concepts of clinical epidemiology and interpreting evidence, represent a set of essential instruments to reduce the gap between science and practice. The advancement of digital and social media has reshaped the concept of health communication, introducing new, direct and powerful communication platforms and gateways between researchers and the public. The objective of this scoping review was to identify strategies for communicating scientific evidence in healthcare to managers and/or population.

METHODS

We searched Cochrane Library, Embase®, MEDLINE® and other six electronic databases, in addition to grey literature, relevant websites from related organizations for studies, documents or reports published from 2000, addressing any strategy for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and/or population.

RESULTS

Our search identified 24 598 unique records, of which 80 met the inclusion criteria and addressed 78 strategies. Most strategies focused on risk and benefit communication in health, were presented by textual format and had been implemented and somehow evaluated. Among the strategies evaluated and appearing to yield some benefit are (i) risk/benefit communication: natural frequencies instead of percentages, absolute risk instead relative risk and number needed to treat, numerical instead nominal communication, mortality instead survival; negative or loss content appear to be more effective than positive or gain content; (ii) evidence synthesis: plain languages summaries to communicate the results of Cochrane reviews to the community were perceived as more reliable, easier to find and understand, and better to support decisions than the original summaries; (iii) teaching/learning: the Informed Health Choices resources seem to be effective for improving critical thinking skills.

CONCLUSION

Our findings contribute to both the knowledge translation process by identifying communication strategies with potential for immediate implementation and to future research by recognizing the need to evaluate the clinical and social impact of other strategies to support evidence-informed policies. Trial registration protocol is prospectively available in MedArxiv (doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.04.21265922).

Identifying and managing psoriasis-associated comorbidities: the IMPACT research programme

Background

Psoriasis is a common, lifelong inflammatory skin disease, the severity of which can range from limited disease involving a small body surface area to extensive skin involvement. It is associated with high levels of physical and psychosocial disability and a range of comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease, and it is currently incurable.

Objectives

To (1) confirm which patients with psoriasis are at highest risk of developing additional long-term conditions and identify service use and costs to patient, (2) apply knowledge about risk of comorbid disease to the development of targeted screening services to reduce risk of further disease, (3) learn how patients with psoriasis cope with their condition and about their views of service provision, (4) identify the barriers to provision of best care for patients with psoriasis and (5) develop patient self-management resources and staff training packages to improve the lives of people with psoriasis.

Design

Mixed methods including two systematic reviews, one population cohort study, one primary care screening study, one discrete choice study, four qualitative studies and three mixed-methodology studies.

Setting

Primary care, secondary care and online surveys.

Participants

People with psoriasis and health-care professionals who manage patients with psoriasis.

Results

Prevalence rates for psoriasis vary by geographical location. Incidence in the UK was estimated to be between 1.30% and 2.60%. Knowledge about the cost-effectiveness of therapies is limited because high-quality clinical comparisons of interventions have not been done or involve short-term follow-up. After adjusting for known cardiovascular risk factors, psoriasis (including severe forms) was not found to be an independent risk factor for major cardiovascular events; however, co-occurrence of inflammatory arthritis was a risk factor. Traditional risk factors were high in patients with psoriasis. Large numbers of patients with suboptimal management of known risk factors were found by screening patients in primary care. Risk information was seldom discussed with patients as part of screening consultations, meaning that a traditional screening approach may not be effective in reducing comorbidities associated with psoriasis. Gaps in training of health-care practitioners to manage psoriasis effectively were identified, including knowledge about risk factors for comorbidities and methods of facilitating behavioural change. Theory-based, high-design-quality patient materials broadened patient understanding of psoriasis and self-management. A 1-day training course based on motivational interviewing principles was effective in increasing practitioner knowledge and changing consultation styles. The primary economic analysis indicated a high level of uncertainty. Sensitivity analysis indicated some situations when the interventions may be cost-effective. The interventions need to be assessed for long-term (cost-)effectiveness.

Limitations

The duration of patient follow-up in the study of cardiovascular disease was relatively short; as a result, future studies with longer follow-up are recommended.

Conclusions

Recognition of the nature of the psoriasis and its impact, knowledge of best practice and guideline use are all limited in those most likely to provide care for the majority of patients. Patients and practitioners are likely to benefit from the provision of appropriate support and/or training that broadens understanding of psoriasis as a complex condition and incorporates support for appropriate health behaviour change. Both interventions were feasible and acceptable to patients and practitioners. Cost-effectiveness remains to be explored.

Future work

Patient support materials have been created for patients and NHS providers. A 1-day training programme with training materials for dermatologists, specialist nurses and primary care practitioners has been designed. Spin-off research projects include a national study of responses to psoriasis therapy and a global study of the prevalence and incidence of psoriasis. A new clinical service is being developed locally based on the key findings of the Identification and Management of Psoriasis Associated ComorbidiTy (IMPACT) programme.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 10, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Imprecision and Preferences in Interpretation of Verbal Probabilities in Health: a Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Many health providers and communicators who are concerned that patients will not understand numbers instead use verbal probabilities (e.g., terms such as "rare" or "common") to convey the gist of a health message.

OBJECTIVE

To assess patient interpretation of and preferences for verbal probability information in health contexts.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of literature published through September 2020. Original studies conducted in English with samples representative of lay populations were included if they assessed health-related information and elicited either (a) numerical estimates of verbal probability terms or (b) preferences for verbal vs. quantitative risk information.

RESULTS

We identified 33 original studies that referenced 145 verbal probability terms, 45 of which were included in at least two studies and 19 in three or more. Numerical interpretations of each verbal term were extremely variable. For example, average interpretations of the term "rare" ranged from 7 to 21%, and for "common," the range was 34 to 71%. In a subset of 9 studies, lay estimates of verbal probability terms were far higher than the standard interpretations established by the European Commission for drug labels. In 10 of 12 samples where preferences were elicited, most participants preferred numerical information, alone or in combination with verbal labels.

CONCLUSION

Numerical interpretation of verbal probabilities is extremely variable and does not correspond well to the numerical probabilities established by expert panels. Most patients appear to prefer quantitative risk information, alone or in combination with verbal labels. Health professionals should be aware that avoiding numeric information to describe risks may not match patient preferences, and that patients interpret verbal risk terms in a highly variable way.

Evaluation of Patient's Knowledge of Atorvastatin Information in Patient Information Leaflets: A Pre-Post Intervention Study in Thailand

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of using atorvastatin PIL on patients' medication knowledge, perceptions of the PIL usefulness, their anxiety about the medication, and factors related to these aspects.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A pre-post intervention study was conducted in outpatients at a university hospital. Patients prescribed atorvastatin were enrolled using systematic random sampling. Participants were asked to complete Self-Administered Questionnaire to assess atorvastatin knowledge at baseline. An atorvastatin-PIL produced by the manufacturer was introduced to the participants as the intervention. One month after receiving the PIL, the participants were re-assessed. Ten questions were developed to assess atorvastatin knowledge and visual analog scale (VAS) was used to assess perceived benefits of using the PIL and patient anxiety about the medication. Multiple linear regression was used to assess the related factors.

RESULTS

Of 450 questionnaires distributed, 370 were returned. Atorvastatin knowledge significantly increased with mean score of 5.06±1.92 at baseline to 8.34±1.79 at 1-month after intervention. Reading all sections of the PIL (p=0.017) and working for civil service (p=0.006) were associated with higher knowledge scores at baseline and after intervention. Low educational level was associated with lower knowledge scores at baseline (p=0.002), but experience of allergy (p=0.042) was associated with higher knowledge scores after the intervention. Patients had high level of perceived usefulness from the PIL (average scores=8.87±1.83) and low level of anxiety (average scores=3.69±3.06). Reading all sections of the PIL (p=0.007) and taking more than 5 medications (p=0.012) were related to perceived usefulness of the PIL. Females (p<0.001) and herbal supplement users (p=0.048) were related to anxiety about the medication.

CONCLUSION

PILs could improve medication knowledge in patients. Patients' perceptions of benefits of PILs were high and anxiety about medication was low. Use of PILs should be encouraged to improve patients' knowledge and appropriate use of medications.

Communicating tailored risk information of cancer treatment side effects: Only words or also numbers?

BACKGROUND

The increased availability of patient reported outcome data makes it feasible to provide patients tailored risk information of cancer treatment side effects. However, it is unclear how such information influences patients' risk interpretations compared to generic population-based risks, and which message format should be used to communicate such individualized statistics.

METHODS

A web-based experiment was conducted in which participants (n = 141) read a hypothetical treatment decision-making scenario about four side effect risks of adjuvant chemotherapy for advanced colon cancer. Participants were cancer patients or survivors who were recruited from an online Dutch cancer patient panel. All participants received two tailored risks (of which the reference class was based on their age, gender and tumor stage) and two generic risks conveying the likelihood of experiencing the side effects. The risks were presented either in words-only ('common' and 'very common'), or in a combination of words and corresponding numerical estimates ('common, 10 out of 100' and 'very common, 40 out of 100'). Participants' estimation of the probability, accuracy of their estimation, and perceived likelihood of occurrence were primary outcomes. Perceived personal relevance and perceived uncertainty were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Tailored risks were estimated as higher and less accurate than generic risks, but only when they were presented in words; Such differences were not found in the verbal and numerical combined condition. Although tailoring risks did not impact participants' perceived likelihood of occurrence, tailored risks were perceived as more personally relevant than generic risks in both message formats. Finally, tailored risks were perceived as less uncertain than generic risks, but only in the verbal-only condition.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering current interest in the use of personalized decision aids for improving shared decision-making in oncology, it is important that clinicians consider how tailored risks of treatment side effects should be communicated to patients. We recommend both clinicians who communicate probability information during consultations, and decision aid developers, that verbal descriptors of tailored risks should be supported by numerical estimates of risks levels, to avoid overestimation of risks.

Verbal Quantifiers and Communicating Painkiller Side Effect Risk

The two studies reported here explore the use of verbal quantifiers (e.g., "common") as an alternative to the numerical presentation of risk information about prescription drugs. Guided by work on adverb-adjective pairs (Study 1) and research on fuzzy trace theory (Study 2), predictions are made about participants' risk perceptions after reading verbal presentations of a medication's side effects. Participants report their perceptions about the drug's side effects' occurrence among users. In Study 1, pairs of adverbs and adjectives (e.g., "very rare") are used in contrast to adjectives alone to convey numerical risk information. In Study 2, severity and more general risk perception measures are added to better understand bottom-down schema processing. Findings show that individuals vastly overestimate the likelihood of side effects occurring, compared with the European Union's CIOMS III recommendations (e.g., "rare" side effects affect .01-.1% of users), and demonstrate support for the differences between gist and verbatim processing of risk information.

A systematic review of factors associated with side-effect expectations from medical interventions

BACKGROUND

Fear of side-effects can result in non-adherence to medical interventions, such as medication and chemotherapy. Side-effect expectations have been identified as strong predictors of later perception of side-effects. However, research investigating predictors of side-effect expectations is disparate.

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors associated with side-effect expectations.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We systematically searched Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Global Health, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Scopus.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies were included if they investigated associations between any predictive factor and expectations of side-effects from any medical intervention.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We extracted information about participant characteristics, medication, rates of side-effects expected and predictors of side-effect expectations. Data were narratively synthesized.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified sixty-four citations, reporting on seventy-two studies. Predictors fell into five categories: personal characteristics, clinical characteristics, psychological traits and state, presentation format of information, and information sources used. Using verbal risk descriptors (eg 'common') compared to numerical descriptors (eg percentages), having lower quality of life or well-being, and currently experiencing symptoms were associated with increased side-effect expectations.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Decreasing unrealistic side-effect expectations may lead to decreased experience of side-effects and increased adherence to medical interventions. Widespread communications about medical interventions should describe the incidence of side-effects numerically. Evidence suggests that clinicians should take particular care with patients with lower quality of life, who are currently experiencing symptoms and who have previously experienced symptoms from treatment. Further research should investigate different clinical populations and aim to quantify the impact of the media and social media on side-effect expectations.

Experiences and Views of Medicine Information Among the General Public in Thailand

PURPOSE

Written and electronic medicine information are important for improving patient knowledge and safe use of medicines. Written medicine information in Thailand is mostly in the form of printed package inserts (PIs), designed for health professionals, with few medicines having patient information leaflets (PILs). The aim of this study was to determine practices, needs and expectations of Thai general public about written and electronic medicine information and attitudes towards PILs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Cross-sectional survey, using self-completed questionnaires, was distributed directly to members of the general public in a large city, during January to March 2019. It explored experiences of using information, expectations, needs and attitudes, the latter measured using a 10-item scale. Differences between sub-groups were assessed, applying the Bonferroni correction to determine statistical significance.

RESULTS

Of the total 851 questionnaires distributed, 550 were returned (64.2%). The majority of respondents (88%) had received PIs, but only a quarter (26.2%) had received PILs. Most respondents (78.5%) had seen medicine information in online form. High educational level and income increased the likelihood of receiving PILs and electronic information. The majority of respondents (88.5%) perceived PILs as useful, but 70% considered they would still need information about medicines from health professionals. Indication, drug name and precautions were the most frequently read information in PIs and perceived as needed in PILs. Three-quarters of respondents would read electronic information if it were available, with more who had received a PIL having previously searched for such information compared to those who had not. All respondents had positive overall attitudes towards PILs.

CONCLUSION

Experiences of receiving PILs and electronic medicine information in Thailand are relatively limited. However, the general public considered PILs as a useful source of medicine information. Electronic medicine information was desired and should be developed to be an additional source of information for consumers.

How is cervical cancer screening information communicated in UK websites? Cross-sectional analysis of content and quantitative presentation formats

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether UK websites about cervical cancer screening targeted to the public include (1) information about benefits and risks of screening, possible screening results and cervical cancer statistics, (2) quantitative presentation formats recommended in the risk communication literature and (3) appeals for participation and/or informed decision-making.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of websites using a comprehensive checklist of information items on screening benefits, risks, possible results and cervical cancer statistics.

OUTCOME MEASURES

We recorded the number of websites that contained each of the information items, and the presentation format used for probabilistic information (no quantification provided, verbal quantifiers only, different types of numerical formats and/or graphs). We also recorded the number of websites containing appeals for participation and/or informed decision-making.

SETTING

Websites were identified through the most common Google search terms used in the UK to find information on cervical screening, according to GoogleTrends and a commercial internet-monitoring programme. Two additional websites were identified by the authors as relevant.

RESULTS

After applying exclusion criteria, 14 websites were evaluated, including websites of public and private health service providers, charities, a medical society and a pharmacy. The websites mentioned different benefits, risks of screening and possible results. However, specific content varied between websites. Probabilistic information was often presented using non-recommended formats, including relative risk reductions to express screening benefits, and verbal quantifiers without numbers to express risks. Appeals for participation were present in most websites, with almost half also mentioning informed decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

UK websites about cervical cancer screening were generally balanced. However, benefits and risks were presented using different formats, potentially hindering comparisons. Additionally, recommendations from the literature to facilitate understanding of quantitative information and facilitate informed decisions were often not followed. Designing websites that adhere to existing recommendations may support informed screening uptake.

How Do Women Interpret the NHS Information Leaflet about Cervical Cancer Screening?

Background. Organized screening programs often rely on written materials to inform the public. In the United Kingdom, women invited for cervical cancer screening receive a leaflet from the National Health Service (NHS) to support screening decisions. However, information about screening may be too complex for people to understand, potentially hindering informed decision making. Objectives. We aimed to identify women's difficulties in interpreting the leaflet used in England and negative and positive responses to the leaflet. Methods. We used a sequential mixed-methods design involving 2 steps: cognitive think-aloud interviews (n = 20), followed by an England-wide survey (n = 602). Data were collected between June 2017 and December 2018, and participants included women aged 25 to 64 y with varying sociodemographics. Results. Interview results revealed misunderstandings concerning screening results, benefits, and additional tests and treatment, although participants tended to react positively to numerical information. Participants were often unfamiliar with the potential harms associated with screening (i.e., screening risks), key aspects of human papillomavirus, and complex terms (e.g., dyskaryosis). Survey results indicated that interpretation difficulties were common (M correct items = 12.5 of 23). Lower understanding was associated with lower educational level (β's >0.15, P's <0.001), lower numeracy scores (β = 0.36, P < 0.001), and nonwhite ethnicity (β = 0.10, P = 0.007). The leaflet was evaluated positively overall. Conclusions. Despite previous user testing of the leaflet, key information may be too complex for some recipients. As a consequence, they may struggle to make informed decisions about screening participation based on the information provided. We discuss implications for the improvement of communications about screening and decision support.

Do people with intellectual disabilities understand their prescription medication? A scoping review

Background

People with intellectual disabilities are more likely to experience poor health than the general population and are frequently prescribed multiple medications. Therefore, it is important that people with intellectual disabilities understand their medication and potential adverse effects.

Method

A scoping review explored people with intellectual disabilities' knowledge of prescription medications, their risks and how medication understanding can be improved.

Results

Ten journal articles were included. People with intellectual disabilities often lacked understanding of their medication, including its name, purpose and when and how to take it. Participants were often confused or unaware of adverse effects associated with their medication. Information was sometimes explained to carers rather than people with intellectual disabilities. Some interventions and accessible information helped to improve knowledge in people with intellectual disabilities.

Conclusion

There is a need for accessible and tailored information about medication to be discussed with people with intellectual disabilities in order to meet legal and best practice standards.

Communicating risk of medication side-effects: role of communication format on risk perception

Background:

Medication side-effects often arouse fear in the minds of consumers and therefore need to be communicated in a manner such that the intended message is clearly understood, without causing undue fear.

Objectives:

Considering the message format and contextual factors that influence perceptions of risk, this study aimed at assessing the interaction effects of message format and contextual factors (rate of occurrence and severity) on risk perception of medication side-effects.

Methods:

Using Rhormann’s risk communication process model, a 2 (message format: words-only vs. words + numeric) X 2 (rate of occurrence: high vs low) X 2 (severity: mild vs severe) experimental factorial study was designed. Participants were presented with four of eight possible combinations of the three factors and were asked to indicate the risk perception with the associated side-effects. Repeated measures analysis was conducted while adjusting for control variables.

Results:

A total of 196 completed surveys were collected. Communication format did not have significant main effect on risk perception (P=0.4237) but demonstrated a significant interaction with rate of occurrence (P=0.0001). As compared to words-only format, least square means for words + numeric format were lower among low-rate side-effects but were higher among high-rate side-effects. Rate of occurrence (P<0.0001) and severity (P<0.0001) had significant main effects on risk perception as well as interaction effect with each other (P<0.0001).

Conclusions:

The results indicated that effect of communication format on risk perception of side-effect is dependent on the underlying rate of occurrence of side-effect. Healthcare providers should therefore carefully construct risk communication messages for effective communication with patients.

Effects of risk disclosure prominence in direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs: An integrative cognitive process model

The literature shows that the prominence of risk disclosure influences consumer responses to direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. However, little is known about the psychological process whereby disclosure prominence exerts its influences on health beliefs and behavior. Based on a review of the literature on health cognition and behavior, the current study proposed and tested a model to show that risk disclosure prominence affects consumers' drug choice intention through the mediating roles of awareness of drug adverse reactions (ARs), perceived control over ARs, and perceived risk of ARs. The findings were discussed in terms of their theoretical and managerial implications.

What Factors Influence Women's Perceptions of their Systemic Recurrence Risk after Breast Cancer Treatment?

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer patients' misunderstanding of their systemic cancer recurrence risk has consequences on decision-making and quality of life. Little is known about how women derive their risk estimates.

METHODS

Using Los Angeles and Georgia's SEER registries (2014-2015), a random sample of early-stage breast cancer patients was sent surveys about 2 to 3 months after surgery ( N = 3930; RR, 68%). We conducted an inductive thematic analysis of open-ended responses about why women chose their risk estimates in a uniquely large sub-sample ( N = 1,754). Clinician estimates of systemic recurrence risk were provided for patient sub-groups with DCIS and with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk invasive disease. Women's perceived risk of systemic recurrence (0% to 100%) was categorized as overestimation, reasonably accurate estimation, or underestimation (0% for invasive disease) and was compared across identified factors and by clinical presentation.

RESULTS

Women identified 9 main factors related to their clinical experience (e.g., diagnosis and testing; treatment) and non-clinical beliefs (e.g., uncertainty; spirituality). Women who mentioned at least one clinical experience factor were significantly less likely to overestimate their risk (12% v. 43%, P < 0.001). Most women who were influenced by "communication with a clinician" had reasonably accurate recurrence estimates (68%). "Uncertainty" and "family and personal history" were associated with overestimation, particularly for women with DCIS (75%; 84%). "Spirituality, religion, and faith" was associated with an underestimation of risk (63% v. 20%, P < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

The quantification of our qualitative results is subject to any biases that may have occurred during the coding process despite rigorous methodology.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-clinician communication is important for breast cancer patients' understanding of their numeric risk of systemic recurrence. Clinician discussions about recurrence risk should address uncertainty and relevance of family and personal history.

Comparative analysis of package inserts of local and imported antihypertensive medications in Palestine

BACKGROUND

Package inserts (PIs) as a reliable reference for patients and health care providers should provide accurate, complete and up-to-date information. The purpose of the current study is to assess and compare the PIs of antihypertensive agents locally produced in Palestine and their imported counterparts.

METHODS

Thirty-five PIs were assessed for the presence of 31 information statements using a scoring method. Word counting of 20 headings and subheadings was used to evaluate and compare local and imported PIs for information quantity.

RESULTS

None of the analysed PIs fulfilled the criteria. All of them included the brand name, active ingredients, indications, directions for use, adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions, pregnancy and lactation considerations, and storage. Whereas none of them, either local or imported PIs, included the shelf life and instructions to convert tablets or capsules into liquid forms. Additionally, only one (5%) imported and no (0%) local PIs mentioned the duration of therapy. Moreover, 93.4% of local PIs were deficient in areas regarding the inactive ingredients and date of last revision, and 86.7% did not mention the drug dose and possibility of tablet splitting. Furthermore, the maximum dose was not indicated in 90% of imported and 86.7% of local PIs. In general, imported PIs contained more detailed information than their local counterparts, where the range of differences in medians between the local and imported PIs was from 1.5-fold for pregnancy considerations to >42.00-fold for the effect on the ability to drive and use machines.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study revealed the superiority of imported over local PIs in both quality and quantity of information provided. This emphasises the need for appropriate measures to be taken by the Ministry of Health and local manufacturers to ensure efficiency of local PIs in providing accurate, complete and up-to-date information.

Practice Guideline Summary: Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy Incidence Rates and Risk Factors: Report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Epilepsy Society

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence rates of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) in different epilepsy populations and address the question of whether risk factors for SUDEP have been identified.

METHODS

Systematic review of evidence; modified Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation process for developing conclusions; recommendations developed by consensus.

RESULTS

Findings for incidence rates based on 12 Class I studies include the following: SUDEP risk in children with epilepsy (aged 0-17 years) is 0.22/1,000 patient-years (95% CI 0.16-0.31) (high confidence in evidence). SUDEP risk increases in adults to 1.2/1,000 patient-years (95% CI 0.64-2.32) (low confidence in evidence). The major risk factor for SUDEP is the occurrence of generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS); the SUDEP risk increases in association with increasing frequency of GTCS occurrence (high confidence in evidence).

RECOMMENDATIONS

Level B: Clinicians caring for young children with epilepsy should inform parents/guardians that in 1 year, SUDEP typically affects 1 in 4,500 children; therefore, 4,499 of 4,500 children will not be affected. Clinicians should inform adult patients with epilepsy that SUDEP typically affects 1 in 1,000 adults with epilepsy per year; therefore, annually 999 of 1,000 adults will not be affected. For persons with epilepsy who continue to experience GTCS, clinicians should continue to actively manage epilepsy therapies to reduce seizures and SUDEP risk while incorporating patient preferences and weighing the risks and benefits of any new approach. Clinicians should inform persons with epilepsy that seizure freedom, particularly freedom from GTCS, is strongly associated with decreased SUDEP risk.

Medication Risk Communication in Rheumatology: Where Are We and Where Do We Go from Here?

This paper reviews findings from recent research examining issues related to the risk communication process within the context of rheumatologic conditions. Five specific questions are addressed. First, to what extent do patients with rheumatic disorders exhibit adequate knowledge relevant to disease and medication risks and risk management? Second, what sources do patients use when attempting to find information about disease and medication risks and risk management? Third, what types of information about disease and medication risks and risk management do rheumatologists provide during routine office visits. Fourth, what governmental regulations attempt to increase consumer access to information about medication risks and risk management? Finally, what other educational resources are available to facilitate patient-provider communication concerning disease and medication risks and risk management? The findings reported identify gaps in patient knowledge concerning medication risks and risk management, highlight areas for improvement, and identify resources that may enhance medication risk communication.

What are judgment skills in health literacy? A psycho-cognitive perspective of judgment and decision-making research

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review is to summarize current research relating to psychological processes involved in judgment and decision-making (JDM) and identify which processes can be incorporated and used in the construct of health literacy (HL) in order to enrich its conceptualization and to provide more information about people's preferences.

METHODS

The literature review was aimed at identifying comprehensive research in the field; therefore appropriate databases were searched for English language articles dated from 1998 to 2015.

RESULTS

Several psychological processes have been found to be constituents of JDM and potentially incorporated in the definition of HL: cognition, self-regulation, emotion, reasoning-thinking, and social perception.

CONCLUSION

HL research can benefit from this JDM literature overview, first, by elaborating on the idea that judgment is multidimensional and constituted by several specific processes, and second, by using the results to implement the definition of "judgment skills". Moreover, this review can favor the development of new instruments that can measure HL.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Future researchers in HL should work together with researchers in psychological sciences not only to investigate the processes behind JDM in-depth but also to create effective opportunities to improve HL in all patients, to promote good decisions, and orient patients' preferences in all health contexts.

Knowledge and perceptions of risk for cardiovascular disease: Findings of a qualitative investigation from a low-income peri-urban community in the Western Cape, South Africa

Background

South Africa currently faces an increasing burden of cardiovascular disease. Although referred to clinics after community screening initiatives, few individuals who are identified to be at high risk for developing cardiovascular disease attend. Low health literacy and risk perception have been identified as possible causes. We investigated the knowledge and perceptions about risk for cardiovascular disease in a community.

Method

We conducted a series of focus group discussions with individuals from a low-income peri-urban community in the Western Cape, South Africa. Different methods of presenting risk were explored. The data were organised into themes and analysed to find associations between themes to provide explanations for our findings.

Results

Respondents’ knowledge of cardiovascular disease and its risk factors varied, but most were familiar with the terms used to describe cardiovascular disease. In contrast, understanding of the concept of risk was poor. Risk was perceived as a binary concept and evaluation of different narrative and visual methods of presenting risk was not possible.

Conclusion

Understanding cardiovascular disease and its risk factors requires a different set of skills from that needed to understand uncertainty and risk. The former requires knowledge of facts, whereas understanding of risk requires numerical and computational skills. Without a better understanding of risk, risk assessments for cardiovascular disease may fail in this community.

Combined verbal and numerical expressions increase perceived risk of medicine side-effects: a randomized controlled trial of EMA recommendations

BACKGROUND

The study evaluated European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommendations on communicating frequency information on side-effect risk.

METHODS

The study used a 2 × 2 factorial trial, with random allocation of information about 10 side-effects of paclitaxel (Taxol) expressed using one of four formats. Recruitment was via the CancerHelpUK website. Information was conveyed using numerical frequency bands (e.g. 'may affect up to 1 in 10 people') or combined verbal terms and numerical bands (e.g. 'common: may affect up to 1 in 10 people'); in addition, the risk qualifier verb was manipulated, with risks expressed either as 'will affect…' or 'may affect…'. Participants then made six side-effect frequency estimates indicated their satisfaction with the information and evaluated the side-effects: how bad; how likely; how risky to health; and their influence on taking paclitaxel.

RESULTS

The sample comprised 339 people, of whom 37.5% had cancer. The combined verbal and numerical risk expressions resulted in higher estimates of side-effects, four of which reached statistical significance (P < 0.05), and participants also said that side-effects would be more likely. Use of 'may affect' or 'will affect' did not result in differences in any estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first evaluation of the full range of combined verbal and numerical risk expressions recommended in EMA guidance; it demonstrates that they can lead to significant risk overestimations when compared to numerical frequency bands alone. The EMA should consider revising its guidance. Government agencies and professional bodies should be cautious about recommendations for risk communication in the absence of empirical evidence.

Consumer interpretation of ramipril and clopidogrel medication risk information - implications for risk communication strategies

PURPOSE

Side effects and side-effect risk information can be provided using written medicine information. However, challenges exist in effectively communicating this information to consumers. This study aimed to explore broad consumer profiles relevant to ramipril and clopidogrel side-effect risk information interpretation.

METHODS

Three focus groups were conducted (n=18 consumers) exploring consumer perspectives, understanding and treatment decision making in response to ramipril and clopidogrel written medicine information leaflets containing side effects and side-effect risk information. All discussions were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed to explore consumer profiles pertaining to side-effect risk appraisal.

RESULTS

Three consumer profiles emerged: glass half-empty, glass half-full, and middle-of-the-road consumers, highlighting the influence of perceived individual susceptibility, interpretation of side-effect risk information, and interindividual differences, on consumers' understanding of side-effect risk information. All profiles emphasized the importance of gaining an understanding of individual side-effect risk when taking medicines.

CONCLUSION

Written side-effect risk information is not interpreted uniformly by consumers. Consumers formulated their own construct of individual susceptibility to side effects. Health care professionals should consider how consumers interpret side-effect risk information and its impact on medication use. Existing risk communication strategies should be evaluated in light of these profiles to determine their effectiveness in conveying information.

Words or numbers? Communicating risk of adverse effects in written consumer health information: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Various types of framing can influence risk perceptions, which may have an impact on treatment decisions and adherence. One way of framing is the use of verbal terms in communicating the probabilities of treatment effects. We systematically reviewed the comparative effects of words versus numbers in communicating the probability of adverse effects to consumers in written health information.

METHODS

Nine electronic databases were searched up to November 2012. Teams of two reviewers independently assessed studies.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

randomised controlled trials; verbal versus numerical presentation; context: written consumer health information.

RESULTS

Ten trials were included. Participants perceived probabilities presented in verbal terms as higher than in numeric terms: commonly used verbal descriptors systematically led to an overestimation of the absolute risk of adverse effects (Range of means: 3% - 54%). Numbers also led to an overestimation of probabilities, but the overestimation was smaller (2% - 20%). The difference in means ranged from 3.8% to 45.9%, with all but one comparison showing significant results. Use of numbers increased satisfaction with the information (MD: 0.48 [CI: 0.32 to 0.63], p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%) and likelihood of medication use (MD for very common side effects: 1.45 [CI: 0.78 to 2.11], p = 0.0001, I2 = 68%; MD for common side effects: 0.90 [CI: 0.61 to 1.19], p < 0.00001, I2 = 1%; MD for rare side effects: 0.39 [0.02 to 0.76], p = 0.04, I2 = not applicable). Outcomes were measured on a 6-point Likert scale, suggesting small to moderate effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Verbal descriptors including "common", "uncommon" and "rare" lead to an overestimation of the probability of adverse effects compared to numerical information, if used as previously suggested by the European Commission. Numbers result in more accurate estimates and increase satisfaction and likelihood of medication use. Our review suggests that providers of consumer health information should quantify treatment effects numerically. Future research should focus on the impact of personal and contextual factors, use representative samples or be conducted in real life settings, measure behavioral outcomes and address whether benefit information can be described verbally.

Exploring consumer opinions on the presentation of side-effects information in Australian Consumer Medicine Information leaflets

Background

Consumer Medicine Information (CMI) is a brand‐specific and standardized source of written medicine information available in Australia for all prescription medicines. Side‐effect information is poorly presented in CMI and may not adequately address consumer information needs.

Objective

To explore consumer opinions on (i) the presentation of side‐effect information in existing Australian CMI leaflets and alternative study‐designed CMIs and (ii) side‐effect risk information and its impact on treatment decision making.

Design

Fuzzy trace, affect heuristic, frequency hypothesis and cognitive‐experiential theories were applied when revising existing CMI side‐effects sections. Together with good information design, functional linguistics and medicine information expertise, alternative ramipril and clopidogrel CMI versions were proposed. Focus groups were then conducted to address the study objectives.

Participants and setting

Three focus groups (n = 18) were conducted in Sydney, Australia. Mean consumer age was 58 years (range 50–65 years), with equal number of males and females.

Results

All consumers preferred the alternative CMIs developed as part of the study, with unequivocal preference for the side‐effects presented in a simple tabular format, as it allowed quick and easy access to information. Consumer misunderstandings reflected literacy and numeracy issues inherent in consumer risk appraisal. Many preferred no numerical information and a large proportion preferred natural frequencies.

Conclusions

One single method of risk presentation in CMI is unable to cater for all consumers. Consumer misunderstandings are indicative of possible health literacy and numeracy factors that influence consumer risk appraisal, which should be explored further.

Numbers matter to informed patient choices: a randomized design across age and numeracy levels

BACKGROUND

How drug adverse events (AEs) are communicated in the United States may mislead consumers and result in low adherence. Requiring written information to include numeric AE-likelihood information might lessen these effects, but providing numbers may disadvantage less skilled populations. The objective was to determine risk comprehension and willingness to use a medication when presented with numeric or nonnumeric AE-likelihood information across age, numeracy, and cholesterol-lowering drug-use groups.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional Internet survey (N = 905; American Life Panel, 15 May 2008 to 18 June 2008), respondents were presented with a hypothetical prescription medication for high cholesterol. AE likelihoods were described using 1 of 6 formats (nonnumeric: consumer medication information (CMI)-like list, risk labels; numeric: percentage, frequency, risk labels + percentage, risk labels + frequency). Main outcome measures were risk comprehension (recoded to indicate presence/absence of risk overestimation and underestimation), willingness to use the medication (7-point scale; not likely = 0, very likely = 6), and main reason for willingness (chosen from 8 predefined reasons).

RESULTS

Individuals given nonnumeric information were more likely to overestimate risk, were less willing to take the medication, and gave different reasons than those provided numeric information across numeracy and age groups (e.g., among the less numerate, 69% and 18% overestimated risks in nonnumeric and numeric formats, respectively; among the more numerate, these same proportions were 66% and 6%). Less numerate middle-aged and older adults, however, showed less influence of numeric format on willingness to take the medication. It is unclear whether differences are clinically meaningful, although some differences are large.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing numeric AE-likelihood information (compared with nonnumeric) is likely to increase risk comprehension across numeracy and age levels. Its effects on uptake and adherence of prescribed drugs should be similar across the population, except perhaps in older, less numerate individuals.

Comprehension of the description of side effects in drug information leaflets: a survey of doctors, pharmacists and lawyers

BACKGROUND

The German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte, BfArM) states that it uses standardized terms to describe the probabilities of side effects in drug information leaflets. It is unclear, however, whether these terms are actually understood correctly by doctors, pharmacists, and lawyers.

METHODS

A total of 1000 doctors, pharmacists, and lawyers were questioned by mail, and 60.4% of the questionnaires were filled out and returned. In the absence of any particular, potentially suggestive context, the respondents were asked to give a numerical interpretation of each of 20 verbal expressions of probability. Side effects were the subject of a hypothetical physician-patient case scenario. The respondents were also asked to give percentages that they felt corresponded to the terms "common," "uncommon," and "rare." The values obtained were compared with the intended values of the BfArM.

RESULTS

The results obtained from the three professional groups resembled each other but stood in marked contrast to the BfArM definitions. With respect to side effects, the pharmacists matched the BfArM definitions most closely (5.8% "common," 1.9% "uncommon" and "rare"), followed by the physicians (3.5%, 0.3%, 0.9%) and the lawyers (0.7%, 0%, 0.7%). When the context of the side effects was not mentioned, the degree of agreement was much lower.

CONCLUSION

Statements about the frequency of side effects are found in all drug information leaflets. Only a small minority of the respondents correctly stated the meaning of terms that are used to describe the frequency of occurrence of side effects, even though they routinely have to convey probabilities of side effects in the course of their professional duties. It can be concluded that the BfArM definitions of these terms do not, in general, correspond to their meanings in ordinary language.

Saudi young patient understanding of information about side effects: Verbal versus numerical expression

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of providing different formats about side effect information (verbal versus numerical) to acne patients in Saudi Arabia that are newly prescribed Roaccutane.

DESIGN

A prospective study assessing patients' degree of estimation about side effect information.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred and forty-one acne patients newly prescribed Roaccutane.

SETTINGS

Four dermatology clinics in Riyadh. Two in tertiary hospitals and the other two in private clinics.

INTERVENTION

Each patient received information about two different side effects for Roaccutane. The side effect provided was supplemented with the probability of occurrence, which was written either in words or in numbers. (Dry eye "very common" or "30%"; Loss of hair "rare" or "0.01%").

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient's estimation of side effect occurrence. Other outcomes were the likelihood of experiencing the side effect, the severity of the side effect, their perception of risk of the side effects to their general health, their satisfaction with the information provided and, whether the information provided will influence their decision to take the medicine.

RESULT

The mean estimate for side effect occurrence for the dry eyes was 46% in the verbal group and 41% in the numerical group (p = 0.5); for loss of hair it was 50% in the verbal group and 39% in the numerical group (p = 0.03). There are no significant differences between verbal and numerical groups regarding the remaining measures.

CONCLUSION

Patients overestimate the probability of occurrence of side effect. Verbal format of probability of occurrence is associated with higher estimation than the numerical format.

Patients' expectations of screening and preventive treatments

PURPOSE

An informed decision to accept a health care intervention requires an understanding of its likely benefit. This study assessed participants' estimates of the benefit, as well as minimum acceptable benefit, of screening for breast and bowel cancer and medication to prevent hip fracture and cardiovascular disease.

METHODS

Three general practitioners sent questionnaires to all registered patients aged 50 to 70 years. Patients agreeing to participate in the study were asked to estimate the number of events (fractures or deaths) prevented in a group of 5,000 patients undergoing each intervention over a period of 10 years, and to indicate the minimum number of events avoided by the intervention that they considered justified its use. The proportions of participants that overestimated each intervention's benefit were calculated, and univariate and multivariable analyses of predictors of response were performed.

RESULTS

The participation rate was 36%: 977 patients were invited to participate in the study, and 354 returned a completed questionnaire. Participants overestimated the degree of benefit conferred by all interventions: 90% of participants overestimated the effect of breast cancer screening, 94% overestimated the effect of bowel cancer screening, 82% overestimated the effect of hip fracture preventive medication, and 69% overestimated the effect of preventive medication for cardiovascular disease. Estimates of minimum acceptable benefit were more conservative, but other than for cardiovascular disease mortality prevention, most respondents indicated a minimum benefit greater than these interventions achieve. A lower level of education was associated with higher estimates of minimum acceptable benefit for all interventions.

CONCLUSION

Patients overestimated the risk reduction achieved with 4 examples of screening and preventive medications. A lower level of education was associated with higher minimum benefit to justify intervention use. This tendency to overestimate benefits may affect patients' decisions to use such interventions, and practitioners should be aware of this tendency when discussing these interventions with patients.

Prescribing and partnership with patients

There have been widespread changes in society and the roles of professionals. This change is also reflected in health care, where there is now acceptance of the need to involve patients in decision making. In prescribing specifically, the concordance agenda was developed alongside these initiatives to encourage improved medication taking and reduce wastage. However the extent to which these partnerships are delivered in practice remains unclear. This paper explores some of the issues to be considered when preparing patients and professionals for partnership and summarizes the limited evidence of barriers to, and benefits of, this approach. Firstly patients must be given the confidence, skills and knowledge to be partners. They need information about medicines, provided in ways known to be acceptable to them. Likewise professionals may need new skills to be partners. They need to understand the patient agenda and may need training and support to change the ways in which they consult with patients. There are also practical issues such as the perceived increase in time taken when consulting in partnership mode, room layout, computer interfaces and record keeping. Health care professionals other than doctors are also expected to behave in partnership mode, whether this is as prescribers in their own right or in supporting the prescribing of others. Whilst much has been claimed for the benefit of partnership approaches, hard evidence is limited. However whilst there is still much more to understand there will be no going back to the paternalistic model of the mid 20th century.

Risk communication methods in hip fracture prevention: a randomised trial in primary care

BACKGROUND

Treatment acceptance by patients is influenced by the way treatment effects are presented. Presentation of benefits using relative risk increases treatment acceptance compared to the use of absolute risk. It is not known whether this effect is modified by prior presentation of a patient's individualised risk estimate or how presentation of treatment harms by relative or absolute risk affects acceptance.

AIM

To compare acceptance of a hypothetical treatment to prevent hip fracture after presentation of the treatment's benefit in relative or absolute terms in the context of a personal fracture risk estimate, and to reassess acceptance following subsequent presentation of harm in relative or absolute terms.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Randomised controlled trial of patients recruited from 10 GPs' lists in Christchurch, New Zealand.

METHOD

Women aged ≥ 50 years were invited to participate. Participants were given a personal 10-year hip fracture risk estimate and randomised to receive information on a hypothetical treatment's benefit and harm in relative or absolute terms.

RESULTS

Of the 1140 women invited to participate 393 (34%) took part. Treatment acceptance was greater following presentation of benefit using absolute terms than relative terms after adjustment forage, education, previous osteoporosis diagnosis, and self-reported risk (OR 1.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.10 to 2.73, P = 0.018). Presentation of the treatment's harmful effect in relative terms led to a greater proportion of participants declining treatment than did presentation in absolute terms (OR 4.89, 95% CI = 2.3 to 11.0, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Presentation of treatment benefit and harm using absolute risk estimates led to greater treatment acceptance than presentation of the same information in relative terms.

Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions

BACKGROUND

The success of evidence-based practice depends on the clear and effective communication of statistical information.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of using alternative statistical presentations of the same risks and risk reductions on understanding, perception, persuasiveness and behaviour of health professionals, policy makers, and consumers.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to October 2007), EMBASE (1980 to October 2007), PsycLIT (1887 to October 2007), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2007, Issue 3). We reviewed the reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and non-randomized controlled parallel and cross-over studies. We focused on four comparisons: a comparison of statistical presentations of a risk (eg frequencies versus probabilities) and three comparisons of statistical presentation of risk reduction: relative risk reduction (RRR) versus absolute risk reduction (ARR), RRR versus number needed to treat (NNT), and ARR versus NNT.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We contacted investigators to obtain missing information. We graded the quality of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. We standardized the outcome effects using adjusted standardized mean difference (SMD).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 35 studies reporting 83 comparisons. None of the studies involved policy makers. Participants (health professionals and consumers) understood natural frequencies better than probabilities (SMD 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.93)). Compared with ARR, RRR had little or no difference in understanding (SMD 0.02 (95% CI -0.39 to 0.43)) but was perceived to be larger (SMD 0.41 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.79)) and more persuasive (SMD 0.66 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.81)). Compared with NNT, RRR was better understood (SMD 0.73 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.04)), was perceived to be larger (SMD 1.15 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.50)) and was more persuasive (SMD 0.65 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.80)). Compared with NNT, ARR was better understood (SMD 0.42 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.71)), was perceived to be larger (SMD 0.79 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.15)).There was little or no difference for persuasiveness (SMD 0.05 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.15)). The sensitivity analyses including only high quality comparisons showed consistent results for persuasiveness for all three comparisons. Overall there were no differences between health professionals and consumers. The overall quality of evidence was rated down to moderate because of the use of surrogate outcomes and/or heterogeneity. None of the comparisons assessed behaviourbehaviour.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Natural frequencies are probably better understood than probabilities. Relative risk reduction (RRR), compared with absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number needed to treat (NNT), may be perceived to be larger and is more likely to be persuasive. However, it is uncertain whether presenting RRR is likely to help people make decisions most consistent with their own values and, in fact, it could lead to misinterpretation. More research is needed to further explore this question.

Risk communication in clinical trials: a cognitive experiment and a survey

BACKGROUND

A Royal Statistical Society Working Party recently recommended that "Greater use should be made of numerical, as opposed to verbal, descriptions of risk" in first-in-man clinical trials. This echoed the view of many clinicians and psychologists about risk communication. As the clinical trial industry expands rapidly across the globe, it is important to understand risk communication in Asian countries.

METHODS

We conducted a cognitive experiment about participation in a hypothetical clinical trial of a pain relief medication and a survey in cancer and arthritis patients in Singapore. In part 1 of the experiment, the patients received information about the risk of side effects in one of three formats (frequency, percentage and verbal descriptor) and in one of two sequences (from least to most severe and from most to least severe), and were asked about their willingness to participate. In part 2, the patients received information about the risk in all three formats, in the same sequence, and were again asked about their willingness to participate. A survey of preference for risk presentation methods and usage of verbal descriptors immediately followed.

RESULTS

Willingness to participate and the likelihood of changing one's decision were not affected by the risk presentation methods. Most patients indicated a preference for the frequency format, but patients with primary school or no formal education were indifferent. While the patients used the verbal descriptors "very common", "common" and "very rare" in ways similar to the European Commission's Guidelines, their usage of the descriptors "uncommon" and "rare" was substantially different from the EU's.

CONCLUSION

In this sample of Asian cancer and arthritis patients, risk presentation format had no impact on willingness to participate in a clinical trial. However, there is a clear preference for the frequency format. The lay use of verbal descriptors was substantially different from the EU's.

Communicating the risk of side effects to patients: an evaluation of UK regulatory recommendations

BACKGROUND

All licensed medicines in the European Union must be provided with a Patient Information Leaflet that includes a list of all known side effects. Among patients who read the leaflet, the side effects section is the most often read. A UK government regulatory publication recommends providing medicine side effect risk information in a combined format, using verbal descriptors accompanied by numerical information.

OBJECTIVES

This study, with users of an existing popular patient information website, investigates the effectiveness of presenting medicine side effect risk information in different forms.

DESIGN

Participants were randomly allocated to one of the three formats for representing risk information (verbal descriptors, e.g. 'common'; absolute frequencies, e.g. 'less than 1 in 10 people'; and a combination of verbal descriptors and frequency bands, e.g. 'common (affects less than 1 in 10 people)'.

METHODS

Participants (n = 187) were recruited from users of the Cancer Research UK patient information website. They were asked to imagine that they had to take a cancer treatment (tamoxifen), estimate the risks of four side effects occurring, and complete Likert scales relating to their satisfaction with the information supplied and perceived likelihood of various outcomes.

RESULTS

Those in the absolute frequency format demonstrated greater accuracy in estimating the likelihood of having two of four side effects than the other two formats. They were also more accurate at estimating the likelihood of themselves or the average person having any side effect from taking tamoxifen. Participants in the absolute frequency format rated the risk to health from tamoxifen as lower than those in the other two formats, were more satisfied with the information they received than those in the verbal format, and felt there would be less impact of the information on tamoxifen use than those in the combined format.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings fail to confirm that the recommended use of combined descriptors for medicine side effects is unequivocally superior to absolute frequency alone. They also add weight to the growing body of research highlighting the deficiencies in using verbal descriptors for conveying side effect risk, and the strength of using absolute frequency descriptors.

Written information about individual medicines for consumers

BACKGROUND

Medicines are the most common intervention in most health services. As with all treatments, those taking medicines need sufficient information: to enable them to take and use the medicines effectively, to understand the potential harms and benefits, and to allow them to make an informed decision about taking them. Written medicines information, such as a leaflet or provided via the Internet, is an intervention that may meet these purposes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of providing written information about individual medicines on relevant patient outcomes (knowledge, attitudes, behaviours and health outcomes) in relation to prescribed and over-the-counter medicines.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, PsycINFO and other databases to March 2007. We handsearched five journals' tables of contents, and the reference lists of included studies, and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of medicine users, comparing written medicines information with no written medicines information; or trials that compared two or more styles of written medicines information. We only included trials that measured a knowledge, attitudinal or behavioural outcome. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data relating to the interventions, methods of the trials, and outcome measures; and reconciled differences by discussion. Heterogeneity of interventions and outcomes measured meant that data synthesis was not possible. The results are presented in narrative and tabular format.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 RCTs involving 4788 participants. Six of twelve trials showed that written information significantly improved knowledge about a medicine, compared with no written information. The inability to combine results means we cannot conclude whether written information was effective for increasing knowledge. The results for attitudinal and behavioural outcomes were mixed. No studies showed an adverse effect of medicines information.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The combined evidence was not strong enough to say whether written medicines information is effective in changing knowledge, attitudes and behaviours related to medicine taking. There is some evidence that written information can improve knowledge. The trials were generally of poor quality, which reduces confidence in the results. Trials examining the effects of written information need to be better designed and use consistent and validated outcome measures. Trials should evaluate internet-based medicines information. It is imperative that written medicines information be based on best practice for its information design and content, which could improve its effectiveness in helping people to use medicines appropriately.

Numeracy and communication with patients: they are counting on us

Patient-centered interactive communication between physicians and patients is recommended to improve the quality of medical care. Numerical concepts are important components of such exchanges and include arithmetic and use of percentages, as well as higher level tasks like estimation, probability, problem-solving, and risk assessment--the basis of preventive medicine. Difficulty with numerical concepts may impede communication. The current evidence on prevalence, measurement, and outcomes related to numeracy is presented, along with a summary of best practices for communication of numerical information. This information is integrated into a hierarchical model of mathematical concepts and skills, which can guide clinicians toward numerical communication that is easier to use with patients.

Adequacy of patient information on adverse effects: an assessment of patient information leaflets in the UK

BACKGROUND

One of the most important categories of information that patients want to know about the drug they are taking is the likelihood or probability of adverse effects. All patients should receive such information in the patient information leaflet that is supplied with all drugs. Anecdotal evidence suggests that most leaflets give little indication of the likelihood of adverse effects. The UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) suggests using a combination of words and numbers to convey this information. However, an EU guideline suggests using five verbal descriptors on a scale from common to rare, the use of which has been shown to lead to gross overestimation of the risk of adverse effects.

METHODS

We assessed the leaflets supplied with the 50 most frequently prescribed drugs in England, to determine the extent to which the likelihood of adverse effects was described, and whether it met the requirements of the EU guidance and/or best practice. We examined both the method used to describe the likelihood of adverse effects, and the format of this information in the leaflet.

RESULTS

Twenty of the 50 leaflets (40%) gave no indication of the likelihood of adverse effects occurring. Six (12%) used the recommended EU terms and a further 20 (40%) used a wide range of other verbal descriptors. Only four leaflets (8%) provided any form of numerical indication of risk. Over half (52%) presented long lists of adverse effects in paragraphs of continuous text.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient need is not being met in terms of the provision of usable information about the likelihood of adverse effects. Most patients receive no information, whereas some are given verbal descriptors, both of which lead to overestimation of the risk. Very few of the patient information leaflets assessed used currently described best practice, i.e. to present verbal descriptions alongside numerical information in the form of natural frequencies, e.g. 'rare (affects less than 1 in 1000 people)'.

What do we know about communicating risk? A brief review and suggestion for contextualising serious, but rare, risk, and the example of cox-2 selective and non-selective NSAIDs

BACKGROUND

Communicating risk is difficult. Although different methods have been proposed - using numbers, words, pictures or combinations - none has been extensively tested. We used electronic and bibliographic searches to review evidence concerning risk perception and presentation. People tend to underestimate common risk and overestimate rare risk; they respond to risks primarily on the basis of emotion rather than facts, seem to be risk averse when faced with medical interventions, and want information on even the rarest of adverse events.

METHODS

We identified observational studies (primarily in the form of meta-analyses) with information on individual non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) or selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor (coxib) use and relative risk of gastrointestinal bleed or cardiovascular event, the background rate of events in the absence of NSAID or coxib, and the likelihood of death from an event. Using this information we present the outcome of additional risk of death from gastrointestinal bleed and cardiovascular event for individual NSAIDs and coxibs alongside information about death from other causes in a series of perspective scales.

RESULTS

The literature on communicating risk to patients is limited. There are problems with literacy, numeracy and the human tendency to overestimate rare risk and underestimate common risk. There is inconsistency in how people translate between numbers and words. We present a method of communicating information about serious risks using the common outcome of death, using pictures, numbers and words, and contextualising the information. The use of this method for gastrointestinal and cardiovascular harm with NSAIDs and coxibs shows differences between individual NSAIDs and coxibs.

CONCLUSION

Although contextualised risk information can be provided on two possible adverse events, many other possible adverse events with potential serious consequences were omitted. Patients and professionals want much information about risks of medical interventions but we do not know how best to meet expectations. The impact of contextualised information remains to be tested.