INTRODUCTION: Communication about the unprecedented number of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recalls has proved challenging. While initial studies have explored the psychological impact of recalls on patients, the optimal way to communicate recalls is not currently known. This study investigated the way communication of a recall can affect patients' responses. METHODS: Sixty-six ICD patients read one of six vignettes that detailed a hypothetical device recall. Vignette variables included the source of recall dissemination (physician vs. media vs. device manufacturer) and the personal relevance (own brand is recalled vs. different brand is recalled). Subsequently, patients rated their agreement to 12 statements concerning their response to the recall on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). RESULTS: Patients were significantly more confident in the accuracy of recall information from both their physician and their manufacturer compared with the media, F (2, 63) = 36.10, P < 0.01, eta(2)= 0.53. Interestingly, patients were concerned about the recall regardless of whether their brand of ICD was recalled. Survey results indicated that 78.6% of patients reported learning about recalls from the media. In stark contrast, 77.0% of patients asserted preferring to learn about recalls from their physician. CONCLUSIONS: ICD patients report increased confidence in the accuracy of the recall information from physicians and manufacturers compared with the media in reporting recalls. Because it seems that most ICD patients learn about recalls from the media, these results demonstrate a disconnect between the initial source of recall information and the patients' desired sources.
INTRODUCTION: Communication about the unprecedented number of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recalls has proved challenging. While initial studies have explored the psychological impact of recalls on patients, the optimal way to communicate recalls is not currently known. This study investigated the way communication of a recall can affect patients' responses. METHODS: Sixty-six ICDpatients read one of six vignettes that detailed a hypothetical device recall. Vignette variables included the source of recall dissemination (physician vs. media vs. device manufacturer) and the personal relevance (own brand is recalled vs. different brand is recalled). Subsequently, patients rated their agreement to 12 statements concerning their response to the recall on a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). RESULTS:Patients were significantly more confident in the accuracy of recall information from both their physician and their manufacturer compared with the media, F (2, 63) = 36.10, P < 0.01, eta(2)= 0.53. Interestingly, patients were concerned about the recall regardless of whether their brand of ICD was recalled. Survey results indicated that 78.6% of patients reported learning about recalls from the media. In stark contrast, 77.0% of patients asserted preferring to learn about recalls from their physician. CONCLUSIONS:ICDpatients report increased confidence in the accuracy of the recall information from physicians and manufacturers compared with the media in reporting recalls. Because it seems that most ICDpatients learn about recalls from the media, these results demonstrate a disconnect between the initial source of recall information and the patients' desired sources.
Authors: Alexander M Clark; Tiny Jaarsma; Patricia Strachan; Patricia M Davidson; Megan Jerke; James M Beattie; Amanda S Duncan; Chantal F Ski; David R Thompson Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2011-07-26 Impact factor: 32.419