Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23061780›Full record

ReviewDrug safety2012

Risk perception and communication in sub-Saharan Africa.

Alexander Dodoo, Bruce Hugman

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drug safety, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Alexander DodooWHO Collaborating Centre for Advocacy and Training in Pharmacovigilance, University of Ghana Medical School, Accra, Ghana. alex.dodoo@who-umc.org
Bruce Hugman

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this narrative review, a brief summary of theoretical approaches to risk perception is followed by an analysis of some of the special factors influencing risk perception and risk communication in sub-Saharan Africa. Examples of recent and emergent local medicines and vaccine controversies in several countries are given along with evidence and analysis of how they were managed. These demonstrate, among other things, the extent to which ethnic, religious and cultural issues influence popular perception, and the power of rumour and anecdote in shaping public opinion and official responses to events. Where safety monitoring systems exist, they are in their infancy, with limited capacity for data collection, credible scientific review, effective public communication and robust crisis management. Although increasing democratic freedoms, including less restricted media, and evolving health systems are addressing the challenges and give hope for further progress, there are still deep and intractable issues that inhibit transparent and effective risk communication and stand in the way of African populations comprehending medicines and their risks in safer and more balanced ways. Some proposals for future change and action are offered, including the pursuit of a deeper understanding of local and national values, assumptions and beliefs that drive risk perception; tailoring public health planning and communications to specifically-targeted regions and populations; strengthening of safety surveillance and data-collection systems; giving higher priority to medicines safety issues in healthcare training and public education.

Indexed as

CommunicationDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsPharmacovigilanceRisk ManagementAfrica South of the SaharaDeveloping CountriesDrug IndustryHealth PersonnelHumansPatient Medication KnowledgeRisk

Identifiers

PMID23061780

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.