Open AccessIs 15 per cent very common? Informing people about the risks of medication side effects
Author(s) -
Berry Dianne C.,
Knapp Peter R.,
Raynor Theo
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
international journal of pharmacy practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.42
H-Index - 37
eISSN - 2042-7174
pISSN - 0961-7671
DOI - 10.1111/j.2042-7174.2002.tb00602.x
Subject(s) - medicine , guideline , interpretation (philosophy) , risk perception , affect (linguistics) , perception , european union , risk communication , side effect (computer science) , risk assessment , actuarial science , environmental health , psychology , business , communication , pathology , neuroscience , computer science , economic policy , programming language , computer security
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.