Literature DB >> 23419118

It's for your benefit: exploring patients' opinions about the inclusion of textual and numerical benefit information in medicine leaflets.

Kim Hamrosi1, Rebecca Dickinson, Peter Knapp, David K Raynor, Ines Krass, Julie Sowter, Parisa Aslani.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To explore consumers' beliefs and preferences for benefit information in medicine leaflets and examine their understanding and reaction to treatment benefits.
METHODS: Forty-five participants were recruited to eight focus groups, run concurrently in Australia (23 participants in four groups) and the UK (22 participants in four groups). Participants were provided with amended leaflets based on the medicine clopidogrel, containing textual and numerical benefit information presented using numbers needed to treat (NNT). A topic guide which explored use of leaflets, preferences and opinions was used to direct discussion. Focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed verbatim and content analysed using adapted cross-case study analysis. KEY
FINDINGS: The consensus was that the inclusion of benefit information was a positive factor. Many participants felt that textual benefit information offered an incentive to take a medicine, although some Australian participants had concerns that included benefit information could create anxiety. The presentation of numerical benefit information provoked strong feelings of disbelief and shock. Participants were surprised that so few people would benefit. Some participants struggled to understand and interpret the NNT and others found it difficult to comprehend the magnitude of the benefit information, instead operating on initial and often crude assumptions of what the data meant. In both countries the provision of numerical benefit information appeared to shake participants' faith in drug treatments. Participants were concerned about how this might affect the 'less-informed' patient. However, in the UK, participants stated that their adherence to treatment was also reinforced by their doctor's advice.
CONCLUSIONS: Participants wanted to receive information about the benefits of their medicines. However, they may misinterpret the numerical information provided.
© 2012 The Authors. IJPP © 2012 Royal Pharmaceutical Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  benefits; harm perception; medicine information leaflets; numbers needed to treat; patient information; risk information

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23419118     DOI: 10.1111/j.2042-7174.2012.00253.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Pharm Pract        ISSN: 0961-7671


  6 in total

1.  Consumer interpretation of ramipril and clopidogrel medication risk information - implications for risk communication strategies.

Authors:  Vivien Tong; David K Raynor; Susan J Blalock; Parisa Aslani
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2015-07-09       Impact factor: 2.711

Review 2.  Words or numbers? Communicating risk of adverse effects in written consumer health information: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Roland Brian Büchter; Dennis Fechtelpeter; Marco Knelangen; Martina Ehrlich; Andreas Waltering
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2014-08-26       Impact factor: 2.796

3.  Providing additional information about the benefits of statins in a leaflet for patients with coronary heart disease: a qualitative study of the impact on attitudes and beliefs.

Authors:  Rebecca Dickinson; David K Raynor; Peter Knapp; Jan MacDonald
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-12-02       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Experiences and Views of Medicine Information Among the General Public in Thailand.

Authors:  Kamonphat Wongtaweepkij; Janet Krska; Juraporn Pongwecharak; Narumol Jarernsiripornkul
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2020-06-30       Impact factor: 2.711

5.  Development and evaluation of user-tested Thai patient information leaflets for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: Effect on patients' knowledge.

Authors:  Narumol Jarernsiripornkul; Pacharaporn Phueanpinit; Juraporn Pongwecharak; Janet Krska
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) summaries for the public: are they fit for purpose? A user-testing study.

Authors:  David K Raynor; David Bryant
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-09-18       Impact factor: 2.692

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.