Int J Pharm Pract 2002:10:145-151
Department of Psychology, University of Reading,
Earley Gate, Whiteknights, Reading, England
RG6 6AL
Dianne C. Berry, DPhil, professor and head of psychology
Pharmacy Practice and Medicines Management Unit, School of Healthcare
Studies, University of Leeds
Theo Raynor, PhD, professor Peter Knapp, PhD, lecturer
Correspondence: Professor Berry
D.C.Berry@Reading.ac.uk
Int J Pharm Pract 2002:10:145-51
|
Original Papers
Is 15 per cent very common? Informing people about the risks of medication side effects
Dianne C. Berry, Peter R. Knapp and Theo Raynor
Objectives
To assess the general public's interpretation of the verbal descriptors
for side effect frequency recommended for use in medicine information
leaflets by a European Union (EU) guideline, and to examine the extent
to which differences in interpretation affect people's perception of risk
and their judgments of intention to comply with the prescribed treatment.
Method — Two studies used a controlled empirical methodology in
which people were presented with a hypothetical, but realistic, scenario
about visiting their general practitioner and being prescribed medication.
They were given an explanation that focused on the side effects of the
medicine, together with information about the probability of occurrence
using either numerical percentages or the corresponding EU verbal descriptors.
Interpretation of the descriptors was assessed. In study 2, participants
were also required to make various judgments, including risk to health
and intention to comply.
Key findings — In both studies, use of the EU recommended descriptors
led to significant overestimations of the likelihood of particular side
effects occurring. Study 2 further showed that the "overestimation" resulted
in significantly increased ratings of perceived severity of side effects
and risk to health, as well as significantly reduced ratings of intention
to comply, compared with those for people who received the probability
information in numerical form.
Conclusion — While it is recognised that the current findings require
replication in a clinical setting, the European and national authorities
should suspend the use of the EU recommended terms until further research
is available to allow the use of an evidence-based approach. |