Abstract
Objective: To determine whether the use of verbal descriptors suggested by the European Union (EU) such as "common" (1–10% frequency) and "rare" (0.01–0.1%) effectively conveys the level of risk of side effects to people taking a medicine.
Design: Randomised controlled study with unconcealed allocation.
Participants: 120 adults taking simvastatin or atorvastatin after cardiac surgery or myocardial infarction.
Setting: Cardiac rehabilitation clinics at two hospitals in Leeds, UK.
Intervention: A written statement about one of the side effects of the medicine (either constipation or pancreatitis). Within each side effect condition half the patients were given the information in verbal form and half in numerical form (for constipation, "common" or 2.5%; for pancreatitis, "rare" or 0.04%).
Main outcome measure: The estimated likelihood of the side effect occurring. Other outcome measures related to the perceived severity of the side effect, its risk to health, and its effect on decisions about whether to take the medicine.
Results: The mean likelihood estimate given for the constipation side effect was 34.2% in the verbal group and 8.1% in the numerical group; for pancreatitis it was 18% in the verbal group and 2.1% in the numerical group. The verbal descriptors were associated with more negative perceptions of the medicine than their equivalent numerical descriptors.
Conclusions: Patients want and need understandable information about medicines and their risks and benefits. This is essential if they are to become partners in medicine taking. The use of verbal descriptors to improve the level of information about side effect risk leads to overestimation of the level of harm and may lead patients to make inappropriate decisions about whether or not they take the medicine.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (67.5 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Berry D. C., Knapp P., Raynor D. K. Provision of information about drug side-effects to patients. Lancet. 2002 Mar 9;359(9309):853–854. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(02)07923-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Berry Dianne C., Raynor D. K., Knapp Peter, Bersellini Elisabetta. Official warnings on thromboembolism risk with oral contraceptives fail to inform users adequately. Contraception. 2002 Nov;66(5):305–307. doi: 10.1016/s0010-7824(02)00386-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Berry Dianne C., Raynor D. K., Knapp Peter, Bersellini Elisabetta. Patients' understanding of risk associated with medication use: impact of European Commission guidelines and other risk scales. Drug Saf. 2003;26(1):1–11. doi: 10.2165/00002018-200326010-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Black D. M., Bakker-Arkema R. G., Nawrocki J. W. An overview of the clinical safety profile of atorvastatin (lipitor), a new HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor. Arch Intern Med. 1998 Mar 23;158(6):577–584. doi: 10.1001/archinte.158.6.577. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Bryant G. D., Norman G. R. Expressions of probability: words and numbers. N Engl J Med. 1980 Feb 14;302(7):411–411. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198002143020718. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Calman K. C. Cancer: science and society and the communication of risk. BMJ. 1996 Sep 28;313(7060):799–802. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7060.799. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Calman K. C., Royston G. H. Risk language and dialects. BMJ. 1997 Oct 11;315(7113):939–942. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7113.939. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Calman K. C. The William Pickles Lecture. Issues of risk: 'this unique opportunity'. Br J Gen Pract. 2001 Jan;51(462):47–51. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dudley N. Importance of risk communication and decision making in cardiovascular conditions in older patients: a discussion paper. Qual Health Care. 2001 Sep;10 (Suppl 1):i19–i22. doi: 10.1136/qhc.0100019... [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Edwards A., Elwyn G. Understanding risk and lessons for clinical risk communication about treatment preferences. Qual Health Care. 2001 Sep;10 (Suppl 1):i9–13. doi: 10.1136/qhc.0100009... [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Edwards Adrian, Elwyn Glyn, Mulley Al. Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. BMJ. 2002 Apr 6;324(7341):827–830. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7341.827. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jones Giselle. Prescribing and taking medicines. BMJ. 2003 Oct 11;327(7419):819–819. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7419.819. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Paling John. Strategies to help patients understand risks. BMJ. 2003 Sep 27;327(7417):745–748. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7417.745. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pedersen T. R., Berg K., Cook T. J., Faergeman O., Haghfelt T., Kjekshus J., Miettinen T., Musliner T. A., Olsson A. G., Pyörälä K. Safety and tolerability of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin during 5 years in the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study. Arch Intern Med. 1996 Oct 14;156(18):2085–2092. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Timmermans D. The roles of experience and domain of expertise in using numerical and verbal probability terms in medical decisions. Med Decis Making. 1994 Apr-Jun;14(2):146–156. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9401400207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]