Communicating quantitative risks and benefits in promotional prescription drug labeling or print advertising

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 447-458

  West, Suzanne L ^a,b   Squiers, Linda B ^a   Mccormack, Lauren ^a   Southwell, Brian G ^a,c   Brouwer, Emily S ^a,b,d   Ashok, Mahima ^a   Lux, Linda ^a   Boudewyns, Vanessa ^a   O'Donoghue, Amie ^e   Sullivan, Helen W ^e  

^a RTI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^b University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^d University of Kentucky   (United States)

^e CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Benefit; Communication; Drug advertising; Literature review; Pharmacoepidemiology; Risk

Indexed keywords

PRESCRIPTION DRUG;

BEHAVIOR; COMPREHENSION; DRUG LABELING; DRUG MARKETING; HEALTH LITERACY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

ADVERTISING AS TOPIC; COMMUNICATION; DRUG LABELING; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HEALTH LITERACY; HUMANS; LEGISLATION, DRUG; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PRESCRIPTION DRUGS; RISK; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84877617688     PISSN: 10538569     EISSN: 10991557     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pds.3416     Document Type: Review

References (56)

1. Lyles A. Direct marketing of pharmaceuticals to consumers. Annu Rev Public Health 2002; 23: 73-91.
2. Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke E, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychol Sci Publ Int 2007; 8: 53-96.
3. Visschers VH, Meertens RM, Passchier WW, de Vries NN. Probability information in risk communication: a review of the research literature. Risk Anal 2009; 29(2): 267-287.
4. Vahabi M. Verbal versus numerical probabilities: does format presentation of probabilistic information regarding breast cancer screening affect women's comprehension? Health Educ J 2010; 69: 150-163.
5. Berry D, Raynor T, Knapp P, Bersellini E. Over the counter medicines and the need for immediate action: a further evaluation of European Commission recommended wordings for communicating risk. Patient Educ Couns May 2004; 53(2): 129-134.
6. Brundage M, Feldman-Stewart D, Leis A, et al. Communicating quality of life information to cancer patients: a study of six presentation formats. J Clin Oncol Oct 1 2005; 23(28): 6949-6956.
7. Mazur DJ, Hickam DH, Mazur MD. How patients' preferences for risk information influence treatment choice in a case of high risk and high therapeutic uncertainty: asymptomatic localized prostate cancer. Med Decis Making Oct-Dec1999; 19(4): 394-398.
8. Connelly NA, Knuth BA. Evaluating risk communication: examining target audience perceptions about four presentation formats for fish consumption health advisory information. Risk Anal Oct 1998; 18(5): 649-659.
9. Cheung YB, Wee HL, Thumboo J, et al. Risk communication in clinical trials: a cognitive experiment and a survey. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2010; 10: 55.
10. Edwards A, Thomas R, Williams R, Ellner AL, Brown P, Elwyn G. Presenting risk information to people with diabetes: evaluating effects and preferences for different formats by a web-based randomised controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns Nov 2006; 63(3): 336-349.
11. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Gwyn R. General practice registrar responses to the use of different risk communication tools in simulated consultations: a focus group study. BMJ Sep 18 1999; 319(7212): 749-752.
12. Brun W, Teigen KH. Verbal probabilities: ambiguous, context-dependent, or both? Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1988; 41: 390-404.
13. Shaw NJ, Dear PR. How do parents of babies interpret qualitative expressions of probability? Arch Dis Child May 1990; 65(5): 520-523.
14. Gurmankin AD, Baron J, Armstrong K. The effect of numerical statements of risk on trust and comfort with hypothetical physician risk communication. Med Decis Making May-Jun 2004; 24(3): 265-271.
15. Char SJL, Evans LR, Malvar GL, White DB. A randomized trial of two methods to disclose prognosis to surrogate decision makers in intensive care units. Am J Respir Crit Care Med Oct 1 2010; 182(7): 905-909.
16. Gattellari M, Ward JE. Does evidence-based information about screening for prostate cancer enhance consumer decision-making? A randomised controlled trial. J Med Screen 2003; 10(1): 27-39.
17. Knapp P, Gardner PH, Raynor DK, Woolf E, McMillan B. Perceived risk of tamoxifen side effects: a study of the use of absolute frequencies or frequency bands, with or without verbal descriptors. Patient Educ Couns May 2010; 79(2): 267-271.
18. Man-Son-Hing M, O'Connor AM, Drake E, Biggs J, Hum V, Laupacis A. The effect of qualitative vs. quantitative presentation of probability estimates on patient decision-making: a randomized trial. Health Expect Sep 2002; 5(3): 246-255.
19. Marteau TM, Saidi G, Goodburn S, Lawton J, Michie S, Bobrow M. Numbers or words? A randomized controlled trial of presenting screen negative results to pregnant women. Prenat Diagn Sep 2000; 20(9): 714-718.
20. Weymiller AJ, Montori VM, Jones LA, et al. Helping patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus make treatment decisions: statin choice randomized trial. Arch Intern Med May 28 2007; 167(10): 1076-1082.
21. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Welch HG. The value of benefit data in direct-to-consumer drug ads. Health Aff (Millwood) Jan-Jun 2004; Suppl Web Exclusives W4:234-245.
22. Steiner MJ, Dalebout S, Condon S, Dominik R, Trussell J. Understanding risk: a randomized controlled trial of communicating contraceptive effectiveness. Obstet Gynecol Oct 2003; 102(4): 709-717.
23. Armstrong K, Schwartz JS, Fitzgerald G, Putt M, Ubel PA. Effect of framing as gain versus loss on understanding and hypothetical treatment choices: survival and mortality curves. Med Decis Making Jan-Feb 2002; 22(1): 76-83.
24. Chao C, Studts JL, Abell T, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: how presentation of recurrence risk influences decision-making. J Clin Oncol Dec 1 2003; 21(23): 4299-4305.
25. Cuite CL, Weinstein ND, Emmons K, Colditz G. A test of numeric formats for communicating risk probabilities. Med Decis Making May-Jun 2008; 28(3): 377-384.
26. Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M. Communicating treatment risk reduction to people with low numeracy skills: a cross-cultural comparison. Am J Public Health Dec 2009; 99(12): 2196-2202.
27. Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M. Who profits from visual aids: overcoming challenges in people's understanding of risks [corrected]. Soc Sci Med Apr 2010; 70(7): 1019-1025.
28. Hawley ST, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Jancovic A, Lucas T, Fagerlin A. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns Dec 2008; 73(3): 448-455.
29. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms: two randomized trials. Ann Intern Med Apr 21 2009; 150(8): 516-527.
30. Sheridan SL, Pignone M. Numeracy and the medical student's ability to interpret data. Eff Clin Pract Jan-Feb 2002; 5(1): 35-40.
31. Sheridan SL, Pignone MP, Lewis CL. A randomized comparison of patients' understanding of number needed to treat and other common risk reduction formats. J Gen Intern Med Nov 2003; 18(11): 884-892.
32. Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A. The effect of format on parents' understanding of the risks and benefits of clinical research: a comparison between text, tables, and graphics. J Health Commun Jul 2010; 15(5): 487-501.
33. Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A. Presenting research risks and benefits to parents: does format matter? Anesth. Analg. Sep 2010; 111(3): 718-723.
34. Tait AR, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Voepel-Lewis T. Effect of various risk/benefit trade-offs on parents' understanding of a pediatric research study. Pediatrics Jun 2010; 125(6): e1475-1482.
35. Ubel PA, Smith DM, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, et al. Testing whether decision aids introduce cognitive biases: results of a randomized trial. Patient Educ Couns Aug 2010; 80(2): 158-163.
36. Waters EA, Weinstein ND, Colditz GA, Emmons K. Formats for improving risk communication in medical tradeoff decisions. J Health Commun Mar 2006; 11(2): 167-182.
37. Waters EA, Weinstein ND, Colditz GA, Emmons KM. Reducing aversion to side effects in preventive medical treatment decisions. J Exp Psychol Appl Mar 2007; 13(1): 11-21.
38. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. Improving understanding of adjuvant therapy options by using simpler risk graphics. Cancer Dec 15 2008; 113(12): 3382-3390.
39. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Smith DM, et al. Communicating side effect risks in a tamoxifen prophylaxis decision aid: the debiasing influence of pictographs. Patient Educ Couns Nov 2008; 73(2): 209-214.
40. Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M. Using plausible group sizes to communicate information about medical risks. Patient Educ Couns Aug 19 2010.
41. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. A demonstration of ''less can be more'' in risk graphics. Med Decis Making Nov-Dec 2010; 30(6): 661-671.
42. Dieckmann NF, Slovic P, Peters EM. The use of narrative evidence and explicit likelihood by decisionmakers varying in numeracy. Risk Anal Oct 2009; 29(10): 1473-1488.
43. Gurmankin AD, Baron J, Armstrong K. Intended message versus message received in hypothetical physician risk communications: exploring the gap. Risk Anal Oct 2004; 24(5): 1337-1347.
44. Halpern DF, Blackman S, Salzman B. Using statistical risk information to assess oral contraceptive safety. Appl Cog Psychol 1989; 3: 251-260.
45. Knapp P, Raynor DK, Berry DC. Comparison of two methods of presenting risk information to patients about the side effects of medicines. Qual Saf Health Care Jun 2004; 13(3): 176-180.
46. Knapp P, Raynor DK, Woolf E, Gardner PH, Carrigan N, McMillan B. Communicating the risk of side effects to patients: an evaluation of UK regulatory recommendations. Drug Saf 2009; 32(10): 837-849.
47. Peters E, Sol Hart P, Fraenkel L. Informing patients: The influence of numeracy, framing, and format of side-effect information on risk perceptions. Med Decis Making 2011; 31: 432-436.
48. Tan SB, Goh C, Thumboo J, Che W, Chowbay B, Cheung YB. Risk perception is affected by modes of risk presentation among Singaporeans. Ann Acad Med Singapore Mar 2005; 34(2): 184-187.
49. Teigen KH, Brun W. The Directionality of Verbal Probability Expressions: Effects on Decisions, Predictions, and Probabilistic Reasoning. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process Nov 1999; 80(2): 155-190.
50. Carling CL, Kristoffersen DT, Herrin J, et al. How should the impact of different presentations of treatment effects on patient choice be evaluated? A pilot randomized trial. PLoS One 2008; 3(11): e3693.
51. Carling CL, Kristoffersen DT, Flottorp S, et al. The effect of alternative graphical displays used to present the benefits of antibiotics for sore throat on decisions about whether to seek treatment: a randomized trial. PLoS Med Aug 2009; 6(8): e1000140.
52. Carling CL, Kristoffersen DT, Oxman AD, et al. The effect of how outcomes are framed on decisions about whether to take antihypertensive medication: a randomized trial. PLoS One 2010; 5(3): e9469.
53. De Abreu MM, Gafni A, Ferraz MB. Development and testing of a decision board to help clinicians present treatment options to lupus nephritis patients in Brazil. Arthritis Rheum. Jan 15 2009; 61(1): 37-45.
54. Fagerlin A, Wang C, Ubel PA. Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people's health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics? Med Decis Making Jul-Aug 2005; 25(4): 398-405.
55. Hembroff LA, Holmes-Rovner M, Wills CE. Treatment decision-making and the form of risk communication: results of a factorial survey. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Nov 16 2004; 4: 20.
56. Peele PB, Siminoff LA, Xu Y, Ravdin PM. Decreased use of adjuvant breast cancer therapy in a randomized controlled trial of a decision aid with individualized risk information. Med Decis Making May-Jun 2005; 25(3): 301-307.