Literature DB >> 25645270

Combined verbal and numerical expressions increase perceived risk of medicine side-effects: a randomized controlled trial of EMA recommendations.

Peter Knapp1, Peter H Gardner2, Elizabeth Woolf3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The study evaluated European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommendations on communicating frequency information on side-effect risk.
METHODS: The study used a 2 × 2 factorial trial, with random allocation of information about 10 side-effects of paclitaxel (Taxol) expressed using one of four formats. Recruitment was via the CancerHelpUK website. Information was conveyed using numerical frequency bands (e.g. 'may affect up to 1 in 10 people') or combined verbal terms and numerical bands (e.g. 'common: may affect up to 1 in 10 people'); in addition, the risk qualifier verb was manipulated, with risks expressed either as 'will affect…' or 'may affect…'. Participants then made six side-effect frequency estimates indicated their satisfaction with the information and evaluated the side-effects: how bad; how likely; how risky to health; and their influence on taking paclitaxel.
RESULTS: The sample comprised 339 people, of whom 37.5% had cancer. The combined verbal and numerical risk expressions resulted in higher estimates of side-effects, four of which reached statistical significance (P < 0.05), and participants also said that side-effects would be more likely. Use of 'may affect' or 'will affect' did not result in differences in any estimates.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first evaluation of the full range of combined verbal and numerical risk expressions recommended in EMA guidance; it demonstrates that they can lead to significant risk overestimations when compared to numerical frequency bands alone. The EMA should consider revising its guidance. Government agencies and professional bodies should be cautious about recommendations for risk communication in the absence of empirical evidence.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  European Medicines Agency; paclitaxel; patient information; risk; side-effect; trial

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25645270      PMCID: PMC5055272          DOI: 10.1111/hex.12344

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Expect        ISSN: 1369-6513            Impact factor:   3.377


  11 in total

1.  How much information about adverse effects of medication do patients want from physicians?

Authors:  D K Ziegler; M C Mosier; M Buenaver; K Okuyemi
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2001-03-12

2.  Statistical numeracy for health: a cross-cultural comparison with probabilistic national samples.

Authors:  Mirta Galesic; Rocio Garcia-Retamero
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2010-03-08

3.  Evaluating a combined (frequency and percentage) risk expression to communicate information on medicine side effects to patients.

Authors:  Peter Knapp; Peter Gardner; Brian McMillan; David K Raynor; Elizabeth Woolf
Journal:  Int J Pharm Pract       Date:  2012-11-09

4.  Provision of information about drug side-effects to patients.

Authors:  D C Berry; P Knapp; D K Raynor
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-03-09       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Perceived risk of medicine side effects in users of a patient information website: a study of the use of verbal descriptors, percentages and natural frequencies.

Authors:  P Knapp; P H Gardner; N Carrigan; D K Raynor; E Woolf
Journal:  Br J Health Psychol       Date:  2008-11-06

6.  Comparison of two methods of presenting risk information to patients about the side effects of medicines.

Authors:  P Knapp; D K Raynor; D C Berry
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2004-06

7.  Adequacy of patient information on adverse effects: an assessment of patient information leaflets in the UK.

Authors:  Neil Carrigan; D K Raynor; Peter Knapp
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 5.606

8.  Perceived risk of tamoxifen side effects: a study of the use of absolute frequencies or frequency bands, with or without verbal descriptors.

Authors:  Peter Knapp; Peter H Gardner; David K Raynor; Elizabeth Woolf; Brian McMillan
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2009-11-05

9.  Communicating the risk of side effects to patients: an evaluation of UK regulatory recommendations.

Authors:  Peter Knapp; David K Raynor; Elizabeth Woolf; Peter H Gardner; Neil Carrigan; Brian McMillan
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 5.606

10.  Mapping health literacy research in the European Union: a bibliometric analysis.

Authors:  Barbara K Kondilis; Ismene J Kiriaze; Anastasia P Athanasoulia; Matthew E Falagas
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2008-06-25       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  11 in total

1.  Changes in Side Effect Risk Communication in Patient Information Leaflets over the Past Decade: Results of a Survey.

Authors:  Katherine Harris; Rebecca Dickinson; David K Raynor; Jan MacDonald; Peter Knapp
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 5.606

2.  Presenting Numeric Information with Percentages and Descriptive Risk Labels: A Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Aleksandr Sinayev; Ellen Peters; Martin Tusler; Liana Fraenkel
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  How does the side-effect information in patient information leaflets influence peoples' side-effect expectations? A cross-sectional national survey of 18- to 65-year-olds in England.

Authors:  Rebecca K Webster; John Weinman; G James Rubin
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2017-06-15       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  People's Understanding of Verbal Risk Descriptors in Patient Information Leaflets: A Cross-Sectional National Survey of 18- to 65-Year-Olds in England.

Authors:  Rebecca K Webster; John Weinman; G James Rubin
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 5.606

5.  Verbal Descriptions Accompanying Numeric Information About the Risk: The Valence of Message and Linguistic Polarity.

Authors:  Agnieszka Olchowska-Kotala
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2019-12

6.  Communicating treatment risks and benefits to cancer patients: a systematic review of communication methods.

Authors:  L F van de Water; J J van Kleef; W P M Dijksterhuis; I Henselmans; H G van den Boorn; N M Vaarzon Morel; K F Schut; J G Daams; E M A Smets; H W M van Laarhoven
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2020-04-24       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  How is cervical cancer screening information communicated in UK websites? Cross-sectional analysis of content and quantitative presentation formats.

Authors:  Yasmina Okan; Samuel G Smith; Wändi Bruine de Bruin
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-10-28       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Communicating tailored risk information of cancer treatment side effects: Only words or also numbers?

Authors:  Ruben D Vromans; Steffen C Pauws; Nadine Bol; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; Emiel J Krahmer
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2020-10-27       Impact factor: 2.796

Review 9.  A systematic review of factors associated with side-effect expectations from medical interventions.

Authors:  Louise E Smith; Rebecca K Webster; G James Rubin
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2020-04-13       Impact factor: 3.377

10.  Imprecision and Preferences in Interpretation of Verbal Probabilities in Health: a Systematic Review.

Authors:  Katerina Andreadis; Ethan Chan; Minha Park; Natalie C Benda; Mohit M Sharma; Michelle Demetres; Diana Delgado; Elizabeth Sigworth; Qingxia Chen; Andrew Liu; Lisa Grossman Liu; Marianne Sharko; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Jessica S Ancker
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2021-08-06       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.