TABLE 5.

Summary of citations investigating the association between presentation format of information and increased side‐effect expectations; different studies are separated by semi‐colons

	Unadjusted			Adjusted
	Association	Mixed association	No association	Association	Mixed association	No association
Verbal probability statement (eg ‘often’), compared to numerical probability statement (percentage/natural frequency/both)	(28, 29) study 1; (29, 32) study 1; (29, 32) study 2; (35);(56);(57);(58) study 2; (77) risk design study	(58) study 1; (46); (77) benefit design study	(26)	(35);(38); (77) risk design study	(45); (77) benefit design study
Verbal probability statement (compared to combined numerical and verbal information)	(77) risk design study; (77) benefit design study			(77) risk design study; (77) benefit design study
Combined numerical and verbal information (compared to just numerical information)		(60)	(66)
Frequency format (compared to percentage and combined frequency and percentage)	(88)	(59)
Probability (percentage) format (compared to frequency)	(79)
Response format (percentage or natural frequency)			(28, 29) study 1			(38)
Only verbal descriptor (eg ‘more’ compared to no information)	(77) benefit design study; (77) risk design study			(77) benefit design study; (77) risk design study
Personalized information (compared to non‐personalized)			(43)	(48) study 1		(48) study 2
Non‐personalized information (compared to personalized)	(31) study 1; (31) study 2
Negatively framed information		(67, 68)		(48) study 1		(48) study 2
Verbal qualifier		(41)	(60)
Narrative summary of information about drugs (compared to facts about drugs	(74) symptom drug box; (74) prevention drug box
Additional information about medical intervention/receiving supporting therapy			(82) study 2; (75)