Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms: Two randomized trials

Annals of Internal Medicine

Volumn 150, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 516-527

  Schwartz, Lisa M ^a   Woloshin, Steven ^a   Welch, H Gilbert ^a  

^a VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACETYLSALICYLIC ACID; CLOPIDOGREL; HISTAMINE H2 RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR; PROTON PUMP INHIBITOR; ANTITHROMBOCYTIC AGENT; DRUG DERIVATIVE; PRESCRIPTION DRUG; TICLOPIDINE;

ABDOMINAL PAIN; ADVERSE DRUG REACTION; ARTICLE; BRAIN HEMORRHAGE; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CONSUMER; DECISION MAKING; DIARRHEA; DRUG CHOICE; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG FACTS BOX; DRUG INFORMATION; HEALTH SURVEY; HEARTBURN; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; PERCEPTION; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPHYLAXIS; RASH; RISK REDUCTION; SKIN BRUISING; STOMACH HEMORRHAGE; UNSPECIFIED SIDE EFFECT; ADULT; ADVERTIZING; AGED; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT EDUCATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL;

ADULT; ADVERTISING AS TOPIC; AGED; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; FEMALE; HEARTBURN; HISTAMINE H2 ANTAGONISTS; HUMANS; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL-COA REDUCTASE INHIBITORS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PLATELET AGGREGATION INHIBITORS; PRESCRIPTION DRUGS; PROTON PUMP INHIBITORS; TICLOPIDINE;

EID: 65349165683     PISSN: 00034819     EISSN: 15393704     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-150-8-200904210-00106     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Spending review. DTC Perspectives. 2008;7:10. Accessed at www .dtcperspectives.com/images/email/DTCPJUNE08.pdf on 3 July 2008.
2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Office of management budget formulation and presentation. Summary of full costs. Accessed at www.fda.gov/oc/oms/ofm/budget/2007/HTML/Tables/SummaryofFullCosts.htm on 3 July 2008.
3. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. The drug facts box: providing consumers with simple tabular data on drug benefit and harm. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:655-62. [PMID: 17873258]
4. Woloshin S, Schwartz L, Welch H. The value of benefit data in direct-to-consumer drug ads. Health Affairs. 2004;Suppl Web Exclusives:W4-234- 45, 2004 Jan-Jun.
5. The American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 5th ed. Lenexa, KS: AAPOR; 2008. Accessed at www.aapor.org/uploads/Standard -Definitions-04-08-Final.pdf on 3 July 2008.
6. van Pinxteren B, Numans ME, Bonis PA, Lau J. Short-term treatment with proton pump inhibitors, H2-receptor antagonists and prokinetics for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-like symptoms and endoscopy negative reflux disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001:CD002095. [PMID: 11687139]
7. Rush DR, Stelmach WJ, Young TL, Kirchdoerfer LJ, Scott-Lennox J, Hol-verson HE, et al. Clinical effectiveness and quality of life with ranitidine vs placebo in gastroesophageal reflux disease patients: a clinical experience network (CEN) study. J Fam Pract. 1995;4l:126-36. [PMID: 7636452]
8. Johnsson F, Hatlebakk JG, Klintenberg AC, Roman J. Symptom-relieving effect of esomeprazole 40 mg daily in patients with heartburn. Scand J Gastro-enterol. 2003;38:347-53.
9. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Plavix (clopidogrel bisulfate). NDA no 020839. Approved 9/20/2007. Accessed at www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2007 /020839s038lbl.pdf on 9 July 2008.
10. A randomised, blinded, trial of clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients at risk of ischaemic events (CAPRIE). CAPRIE Steering Committee. Lancet. 1996;348: 1329-39. [PMID: 8918275]
11. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaborators. Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins. Lancet. 2005;366:1267-78. [PMID: 16214597]
12. Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;360:7-22. [PMID: 12114036]
13. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997; 127:966-72. [PMID: 9412301]
14. National Center for Health Statistics. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-4. Accessed at www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/ nhanes /nhanes2003-2004/nhanes03-04.htm on 9 July 2008.
15. The dataferrett for browsing the dataweb. Accessed at http://dataferrett.census .gov/ on 3 February 2009.
16. Bell RA, Wilkes MS, Kravitz RL. The educational value of consumer-targeted prescription drug print advertising. J Fam Pract. 2000;49:1092-8. [PMID: 11132058]
17. Frosch DL, Krueger PM, Hornik RC, Cronholm PF, Barg FK. Creating demand for prescription drugs: a content analysis of television direct-to-consumer advertising. Ann Fam Med. 2007;5:6-13. [PMID: 17261859]
18. Kallen A, Woloshin S, Shu J, Juhl E, Schwartz L. Direct-to-consumer advertisements for HIV antiretroviral medications: a progress report. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007;26:1392-8. [PMID: 17848450]
19. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Tremmel J, Welch HG. Direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription drugs: what are Americans being sold? Lancet. 2001;358:ll4l-6. [PMID: 11597668]
20. Davis J. The effect of qualifying language on perceptions of drug appeal, drug experience, and estimates of side-effect incidence in DTC advertising. J Health Commun. 2007;12:607-22. [PMID: 17934939]
21. Davis JJ. Consumers' preferences for the communication of risk information in drug advertising. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007;26:863-70. [PMID: 17485767]
22. Biener L, Garrett CA, Gilpin EA, Roman AM, Currivan DB. Consequences of declining survey response rates for smoking prevalence estimates. Am J Prev Med. 2004;27:254-7. [PMID: 15450639]
23. Curtin R, Presser S, Singer E. Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century. Public Opin Q. 2005;69:87-98.
24. Keeter S, Kennedy C, Dimock M, Best J, Craighill P. Gauging the impact of growing nonresponse on estimates from a national rdd telephone survey. Public Opin Q. 2006;70(Special Issue):759-79.
25. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Welch HG. Know Your Chances: Understanding Health Statistics. Berkeley: Univ of California Pr; 2008.
26. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Welch HG. The effectiveness of a primer to help people understand risk: two randomized trials in distinct populations. Ann Intern Med. 2007;l46:256-65. [PMID: 17310049]
27. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: brief summary: disclosing risk information in consumer-directed print advertisements. Rockville, MD: Center for Drug Evaluation, U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2004.
28. Public Law 110-85. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. 121 STAT. 823. Accessed at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin /getdoc.cgi?dbname= 110-cong-public-laws&docid=f:publ085.110.pdf on 9 July 2008.
29. Comparative Effectiveness Research Act of 2008. Vol. S.3408. Accessed at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?cllO:S.3408: on 3 February 2009
30. Drug effectiveness review project (DERP). Oregon Health & Science University. Accessed at www.ohsu.edu/ohsuedu/research/policycenter/DERP/index xfm on 8 July 2008.
31. Institute of Medicine. Understanding the Benefits and Risks of Pharmaceuticals: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Pr; 2007.
32. Committee on the Assessment of the US Drug Safety System. The Future of Drug Safety: Promoting and protecting the health of the public. Washington, DC: National Academies Pr; 2006.
33. Avorn J. Drug warnings that can cause fits-communicating risks in a data-poor environment. N EnglJ Med. 2008;359:991-4. [PMID: 18768941]
34. Kravitz RL, Epstein RM, Feldman MD, Franz CE, Azari R, Wilkes MS, et al. Influence of patients' requests for direct-to-consumer advertised antidepres-sants: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005;293:1995-2002. [PMID: 15855433]