Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26554666›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2015

Understanding adverse drug reactions in package leaflets - an exploratory survey among health care professionals.

Viktoria Mühlbauer, Ingrid Mühlhauser

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [Health Literacy Among German Health Professionals-To-Be - Exploratory Pilot Study].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2022
    Article
  5. Physicians' use of and preferences for FDA-approved prescribing information.Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. In Reply.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2018
    Article
  9. Questionnaire Should not Be Used any Longer.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2017
    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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Viktoria MühlbauerUniversity of Hamburg, MIN Faculty, Health Sciences and Education, Martin-Luther-King Platz 6, D-20146, Hamburg, Germany. viktoria.muehlbauer@uni-hamburg.de.
Ingrid MühlhauserUniversity of Hamburg, MIN Faculty, Health Sciences and Education, Martin-Luther-King Platz 6, D-20146, Hamburg, Germany. Ingrid_Muehlhauser@uni-hamburg.de.
Universität Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent German or UK package leaflets do not contain an explicit notice that the listing of side effects does not imply that they are caused by the drug. Causal interpretations by patients and lay people are frequently observed. The authors examined whether health professionals understand that there is not necessarily a causal relation between drug intake and the frequency of side effects and whether adding placebo comparison improves understanding.

methodsExploratory survey consisting of eight assessments, each containing 2-6 survey items, and focus groups with one survey sample using questionnaires on adverse reactions in standard package leaflets and modified package leaflets supplemented with placebo comparison. Participants were convenience samples of 379 health professionals including 153 physicians (80 gynaecologists, 124 diabetes experts - physicians, nurses, and others, 39 medical students in their last year at university, 49 first year health science and education students with completed vocational training and professional experience in various health care professions and 87 pharmacists/pharmacy students). They were asked to rate how often the different adverse reactions listed were caused by drug intake. All surveys were carried out within university seminars and postgraduate lectures from April 2014 to June 2015 in Germany. Response rate was 86 % or higher.

resultsWithout placebo comparison, the majority of participants responded that the drug causes adverse reactions with the frequency given in the package leaflet or even more often (95 % of health science students, 100 % of medical students, 60 to 80 % of physicians and 66 % of pharmacists/pharmacy students). Simply adding placebo comparison in a table did not prevent misunderstanding. Analysis of focus groups with health science students supported the lack of understanding.

conclusionsIn the present surveys, health professionals had major difficulties understanding frequency information on side effects in package leaflets. The great majority erroneously implied a causal relation between drug intake and the frequency of side effects, even though most side effects listed are symptoms commonly experienced in daily life.

Indexed as

ComprehensionDrug LabelingDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHealth PersonnelAdultFemaleGermanyHumansMalePhysiciansSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID26554666
PMCPMC4641349
OpenAlexW2117158880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.