Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Evidence suggests the current verbal risk descriptors used to communicate side effect risk in patient information leaflets (PILs) are overestimated.

Objectives

The aim was to establish how people understand the verbal risk descriptors recommended for use in PILs by the European Commission (EC), and alternative verbal risk descriptors, in the context of mild and severe side effects.

Methods

A cross-sectional online survey was carried out by a market research company recruiting participants aged between 18 and 65 years living in England. Data were collected between 18 March and 1 April 2016. Participants were given a hypothetical scenario regarding the risk of mild or severe medication side effects and asked to estimate how many out of 10,000 people would be affected for each of the verbal risk descriptors being tested.

Results

A total of 1003 participants were included in the final sample. The risks conveyed by the EC recommended verbal risk descriptors were greatly overestimated by participants. Two distinct distributions were apparent for participant estimates of side effect risks: those for 'high risk' verbal descriptors (e.g. 'common', 'likely', 'high chance') and those for 'low risk' verbal descriptors (e.g. 'uncommon', 'unlikely', 'low chance'). Within these two groups, the distributions were near to identical regardless of what adverb (e.g. very, high, fair) or adjective (e.g. common, likely, chance) was used. The EC recommended verbal risk descriptors were more likely to be understood in accordance with their intended meanings when describing severe side effects. Very few demographic or psychological factors were consistently associated with how well participants understood the EC recommended verbal risk descriptors.

Discussion

The current verbal risk descriptors used in PILs are ineffective at best and misleading at worst. Discontinuing the use of verbal risk descriptors would limit the likelihood of people overestimating the risk of side effects.

SUBMITTER: Webster RK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5519649 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Webster Rebecca K RK Weinman John J Rubin G James GJ

Drug safety 20170801 8

<h4>Introduction</h4>Evidence suggests the current verbal risk descriptors used to communicate side effect risk in patient information leaflets (PILs) are overestimated.<h4>Objectives</h4>The aim was to establish how people understand the verbal risk descriptors recommended for use in PILs by the European Commission (EC), and alternative verbal risk descriptors, in the context of mild and severe side effects.<h4>Methods</h4>A cross-sectional online survey was carried out by a market research com ...[more]

PMID: 28497250

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCurrent German and EU package leaflets (PLs) do not distinguish to what extent listed side effects are indeed side effects caused by drug intake or instead symptoms that occur regardless of drug use. We recently showed that most health professionals misinterpret the frequencies of listed side effects as solely caused by the drug. The present study investigated whether (1) these misinterpretations also prevail among laypeople and (2) alternative PLs reduce these misinterpretations.MethodsIn March 2017, 397 out of 400 laypeople approached completed an online survey. They were randomized to one of four PL formats: three alternative PLs (drug facts box with/without reading instruction, narrative format with numbers) and one standard PL. Each PL listed four side effects for a fictitious drug: two were presented as occurring more often, one as equally often, and one as less often with drug intake. The alternative formats (interventions) included information on frequencies with and without drug intake and included a statement on the causal relation. The standard PL (control) only included information on frequency ranges with drug intake. Questions were asked on general occurrence and causality of side effects.ResultsParticipants randomized to the standard PL were unable to answer questions on causality. For side effects occurring more often (equally; less often) with drug intake, only 1.9% to 2.8% (equally: 1.9%; less often: 1.9%) provided correct responses about the causal nature of side effects, compared to 55.0% to 81.9% (equally: 23.8% to 70.5%; less often: 21.0% to 43.2%) of participants who received alternative PLs. It remains unclear whether one alternative format is superior to the others.ConclusionIn conclusion, information on the frequency of side effects in current package leaflets is misleading. Comparative presentation of frequencies for side effects with and without drug intake including statements on the causal relation significantly improves understanding.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Recently a large clinical trial showed that the use of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) among immunocompetent individuals aged 65 years and over was safe and efficacious. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of vaccinating immunocompetent 65 year olds with PCV13 vaccine in England. England is a country with universal childhood pneumococcal conjugate vaccination programme in place (7-valent (PCV7) since 2006 and PCV13 since 2010), as well as a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide (PPV23) vaccination programme targeting clinical risk-groups and those ?65 years. METHOD:A static cohort cost-effectiveness model was developed to follow a cohort of 65 year olds until death, which will be vaccinated in the autumn of 2016 with PCV13. Sensitivity analysis was performed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS:The childhood vaccination programme with PCV7 has induced herd protection among older unvaccinated age groups, with a resultant low residual disease burden caused by PCV7 vaccine types. We show similar herd protection effects for the 6 additional serotypes included in PCV13, and project a new low post-introduction equilibrium of vaccine-type disease in 2018/19. Applying these incidence projections for both invasive disease and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), and using recent measures of vaccine efficacy against these endpoints for ?65 year olds, we estimate that vaccination of a cohort of immunocompetent 65 year olds with PCV13 would directly prevent 26 cases of IPD, 69 cases of CAP and 15 deaths. The associated cost-effectiveness ratio is £257,771 per QALY gained (using list price of £49.10 per dose and £7.51 administration costs) and is therefore considered not cost-effective. To obtain a cost-effective programme the price per dose would need to be negative. The results were sensitive to disease incidence, waning vaccine protection and case fatality rate; despite this, the overall conclusion was robust. CONCLUSIONS:Vaccinating immunocompetent individuals aged ?65 years with PCV13 is efficacious. However the absolute incidence of vaccine-type disease will likely become very low due to wider benefits of the childhood PCV13 vaccination programme, such that a specific PCV13 vaccination programme targeting the immunocompetent elderly would not be cost-effective.

Project description:ObjectivesLow alcohol labels are a set of labels that carry descriptors such as 'low' or 'lighter' to denote alcohol content in beverages. There is growing interest from policymakers and producers in lower strength alcohol products. However, there is a lack of evidence on how the general population perceives verbal descriptors of strength. The present research examines consumers' perceptions of strength (% ABV) and appeal of alcohol products using low or high alcohol verbal descriptors.DesignA within-subjects experimental study in which participants rated the strength and appeal of 18 terms denoting low (nine terms), high (eight terms) and regular (one term) strengths for either (1) wine or (2) beer according to drinking preference.MethodsThousand six hundred adults (796 wine and 804 beer drinkers) sampled from a nationally representative UK panel.ResultsLow, Lower, Light, Lighter, and Reduced formed a cluster and were rated as denoting lower strength products than Regular, but higher strength than the cluster with intensifiers consisting of Extra Low, Super Low, Extra Light, and Super Light. Similar clustering in perceived strength was observed amongst the high verbal descriptors. Regular was the most appealing strength descriptor, with the low and high verbal descriptors using intensifiers rated least appealing.ConclusionsThe perceived strength and appeal of alcohol products diminished the more the verbal descriptors implied a deviation from Regular. The implications of these findings are discussed in terms of policy implications for lower strength alcohol labelling and associated public health outcomes. Statement of contribution What is already known about this subject? Current UK and EU legislation limits the number of low strength verbal descriptors and the associated alcohol by volume (ABV) to 1.2% ABV and lower. There is growing interest from policymakers and producers to extend the range of lower strength alcohol products above the current cap of 1.2% ABV set out in national legislation. There is a lack of evidence on how the general population perceives verbal descriptors of alcohol product strength (both low and high). What does this study add? Verbal descriptors of lower strength wine and beer form two clusters and effectively communicate reduced alcohol content. Low, Lower, Light, Lighter, and Reduced were considered lower in strength than Regular (average % ABV). Descriptors using intensifiers (Extra Low, Super Low, Extra Light, and Super Light) were considered lowest in strength. Similar clustering in perceived strength was observed amongst the high verbal descriptors. The appeal of alcohol products reduced the more the verbal descriptors implied a deviation from Regular.

Dataset Information

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

Introduction

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets