Open AccessExploring consumer opinions on the presentation of side‐effects information in A ustralian C onsumer M edicine I nformation leaflets
Author(s) -
Tong Vivien,
Raynor David K,
Blalock Susan J,
Aslani Parisa
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
health expectations
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.314
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1369-7625
pISSN - 1369-6513
DOI - 10.1111/hex.12215
Subject(s) - numeracy , health literacy , preference , literacy , psychology , presentation (obstetrics) , consumption (sociology) , marketing , medicine , advertising , business , health care , surgery , statistics , mathematics , economics , pedagogy , economic growth , social science , sociology
Background Consumer M edicine I nformation ( CMI ) is a brand‐specific and standardized source of written medicine information available in A ustralia 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 A ustralian CMI leaflets and alternative study‐designed CMI s 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 S ydney, Australia. Mean consumer age was 58 years (range 50–65 years), with equal number of males and females. Results All consumers preferred the alternative CMI s 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.