Literature DB >> 15818636

Communicating safety information to physicians: an examination of dear doctor letters.

Kathleen M Mazor1, Susan E Andrade, Jill Auger, Leslie Fish, Jerry H Gurwitz.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Recent research suggests that letters to healthcare providers may not effectively communicate safety-related information. This study examined whether content, organization, and formatting of dear doctor letters (DDLs) influences physicians' responses to the letters.
METHODS: Drugs with warning label changes during 2000 and 2001 were identified, and corresponding DDLs were obtained. Letters were coded for content, organization, and formatting. Ten physicians rated letters on presentation, criticalness of the information, and likelihood of changing practice as a result of the letter. Areas of deficiency were identified. The relationships between key characteristics of the letters and physicians' ratings were examined using correlations; reliability of physicians' ratings was estimated using generalizability theory.
RESULTS: For 2000 and 2001, 124 drugs were identified as having had changes to the warning section of the label; DDLs were sent in 32 (25.8%) instances. Letters varied in terms of the placement of key information, use of formatting, and length. Physicians' ratings suggested 25% of the letters were deficient in clarity, 28% in readability, 36% in the ratio of relevant information to supporting information, 36% in key information easily discernable, and 28% in overall effectiveness of communication. Letters with formatting highlighting key information were preferred. Letter length and placement of key information were not correlated with physicians' ratings.
CONCLUSIONS: Many DDLs do not communicate labeling changes clearly and effectively. If DDLs are used to communicate safety information to physicians, special formatting and explicit wording should be used to emphasize new information. Copyright (c) 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15818636     DOI: 10.1002/pds.1102

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf        ISSN: 1053-8569            Impact factor:   2.890


  10 in total

1.  The Additional Value of an E-Mail to Inform Healthcare Professionals of a Drug Safety Issue: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Sigrid Piening; Pieter A de Graeff; Sabine M J M Straus; Flora M Haaijer-Ruskamp; Peter G M Mol
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 5.606

2.  Effectiveness of safety warnings in atypical antipsychotic drugs: an interrupted time-series analysis in Spain.

Authors:  Gabriel Sanfélix-Gimeno; Pedro Cervera-Casino; Salvador Peiró; Beatriz González López-Valcarcel; Amparo Blázquez; Teresa Barbera
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 5.606

3.  Risk Communication and the Pharmaceutical Industry: what is the reality?

Authors:  Brian Edwards; Sweta Chakraborty
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2012-11-01       Impact factor: 5.606

4.  [Effect of the direct healthcare professional communication on citalopram and escitalopram drug utilization for inpatient treatment of anxiety disorders].

Authors:  Ursula Köberle; Renate Grohmann; Michael Belz; Waldemar Greil; Detlef Degner
Journal:  Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz       Date:  2022-09-28       Impact factor: 1.595

5.  Nurse-physician communication in the long-term care setting: perceived barriers and impact on patient safety.

Authors:  Jennifer Tjia; Kathleen M Mazor; Terry Field; Vanessa Meterko; Ann Spenard; Jerry H Gurwitz
Journal:  J Patient Saf       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 2.844

6.  Telithromycin use and spontaneous reports of hepatotoxicity.

Authors:  David D Dore; Julia R DiBello; Kate L Lapane
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 5.606

7.  Pharmaceutical company perspectives on current safety risk communications in Japan.

Authors:  Hisashi Urushihara; Gen Kobashi; Hideaki Masuda; Setsuko Taneichi; Michiko Yamamoto; Takeo Nakayama; Koji Kawakami; Tsutomu Matsuda; Kaori Ohta; Hiroki Sugimori
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2014-01-24

8.  Are monitoring instructions provided in direct healthcare professional communications (DHPCs) of sufficient quality? A retrospective analysis of DHPCs sent out between 2007 and 2018.

Authors:  Maja-Marie Grønfeldt Højer; Marie Louise De Bruin; Arnela Boskovic; Christine Erikstrup Hallgreen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-05-11       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Unpacking the effects of adverse regulatory events: Evidence from pharmaceutical relabeling.

Authors:  Matthew J Higgins; Xin Yan; Chirantan Chatterjee
Journal:  Res Policy       Date:  2020-09-12

10.  Comparative, cross-sectional study of the format, content and timing of medication safety letters issued in Canada, the USA and the UK.

Authors:  Lise M Bjerre; Simon Parlow; David de Launay; Matthew Hogel; Cody D Black; Donald R Mattison; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Margaret C Watson
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-10-08       Impact factor: 2.692

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.