Cargando…

Alternative package leaflets improve people’s understanding of drug side effects—A randomized controlled exploratory survey

BACKGROUND: Current 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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mühlbauer, Viktoria, Prinz, Roman, Mühlhauser, Ingrid, Wegwarth, Odette
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6136776/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30212555
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203800
_version_ 1783355068026716160
author Mühlbauer, Viktoria
Prinz, Roman
Mühlhauser, Ingrid
Wegwarth, Odette
author_facet Mühlbauer, Viktoria
Prinz, Roman
Mühlhauser, Ingrid
Wegwarth, Odette
author_sort Mühlbauer, Viktoria
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Current 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. METHODS: In 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. RESULTS: Participants 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. CONCLUSION: In 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6136776
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61367762018-09-27 Alternative package leaflets improve people’s understanding of drug side effects—A randomized controlled exploratory survey Mühlbauer, Viktoria Prinz, Roman Mühlhauser, Ingrid Wegwarth, Odette PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Current 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. METHODS: In 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. RESULTS: Participants 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. CONCLUSION: In 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. Public Library of Science 2018-09-13 /pmc/articles/PMC6136776/ /pubmed/30212555 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203800 Text en © 2018 Mühlbauer et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Mühlbauer, Viktoria
Prinz, Roman
Mühlhauser, Ingrid
Wegwarth, Odette
Alternative package leaflets improve people’s understanding of drug side effects—A randomized controlled exploratory survey
title Alternative package leaflets improve people’s understanding of drug side effects—A randomized controlled exploratory survey
title_full Alternative package leaflets improve people’s understanding of drug side effects—A randomized controlled exploratory survey
title_fullStr Alternative package leaflets improve people’s understanding of drug side effects—A randomized controlled exploratory survey
title_full_unstemmed Alternative package leaflets improve people’s understanding of drug side effects—A randomized controlled exploratory survey
title_short Alternative package leaflets improve people’s understanding of drug side effects—A randomized controlled exploratory survey
title_sort alternative package leaflets improve people’s understanding of drug side effects—a randomized controlled exploratory survey
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6136776/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30212555
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203800
work_keys_str_mv AT muhlbauerviktoria alternativepackageleafletsimprovepeoplesunderstandingofdrugsideeffectsarandomizedcontrolledexploratorysurvey
AT prinzroman alternativepackageleafletsimprovepeoplesunderstandingofdrugsideeffectsarandomizedcontrolledexploratorysurvey
AT muhlhauseringrid alternativepackageleafletsimprovepeoplesunderstandingofdrugsideeffectsarandomizedcontrolledexploratorysurvey
AT wegwarthodette alternativepackageleafletsimprovepeoplesunderstandingofdrugsideeffectsarandomizedcontrolledexploratorysurvey