ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2017
How does the side-effect information in patient information leaflets influence peoples' side-effect expectations? A cross-sectional national survey of 18- to 65-year-olds in England.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of factors associated with side-effect expectations from medical interventions.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Pooled it
- The Biosimilar Nocebo Effect? A Systematic Review of Double-Blinded Versus Open-Label Studies.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2018Pooled it
- Optimization of an Information Leaflet to Influence Medication Beliefs in Women With Breast Cancer: A Randomized Factorial Experiment.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Decreasing the Burden of Side Effects Through Positive Message Framing: an Experimental Proof-of-Concept Study.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2018Trial
- Alternative package leaflets improve people's understanding of drug side effects-A randomized controlled exploratory survey.PloS one · 2018Trial
- Patient use, understanding, and behaviour toward patient information leaflets for medicines: a cross-sectional study of adults in Italy.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026Article
- A Mobile Health Intervention to Support Collaborative Decision-Making in Mental Health Care: Development and Usability.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Supporting adjuvant endocrine therapy adherence in women with breast cancer: the development of a complex behavioural intervention using Intervention Mapping guided by the Multiphase Optimisation Strategy.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Alcohol-Antiretroviral Therapy Interactive Toxicity Beliefs and Intentional Medication Nonadherence: Review of Research with Implications for Interventions.AIDS and behavior · 2021Review
- Layperson Views about the Design and Evaluation of Decision Aids: A Public Deliberation.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Article
- Patients' Experiences and Perspectives of Receiving Written Medicine Information About Medicines: A Qualitative Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2021Article
- Factors that Facilitate and Hinder the Comprehension of Patient Information Leaflets (PILs): A Brief Scoping Review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- The Unintended Consequences of Adverse Event Information on Medicines' Risks and Label Content.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2020Article
- How does the side-effect information in patient information leaflets influence peoples' side-effect expectations? A cross-sectional national survey of 18- to 65-year-olds in England.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo establish how the terms recommended by the European Commission to describe side-effect risk in patient information leaflets (PILs) influences expectations of side-effects and to identify factors associated with these side-effect expectations.
designA cross-sectional online survey was carried out by a market research company.
settingData were collected in England between 18th March and 1st April 2016.
participantsA total of 1003 adults aged between 18 and 65.
main outcome measuresSelf-reported expectation that the described side-effects would affect participants if they took the medicine, measured on a likelihood scale from 1 (very unlikely) to 5 (very likely).
resultsParticipants formed high expectations of side-effects for "very common" and "common" side-effects, with 51.9% and 45.0% of participants rating these as "very likely" or "likely" to happen to them, respectively. This fell to 8.1% for "uncommon," 5.8% for "rare" and 4.1% for "very rare." For each descriptor, higher expectations of side-effects were more associated with women or being from an ethnic minority, or having less education, a household illness, high perceived sensitivity to medicines or negative beliefs about medicines. DISCUSSION: The current use of verbal descriptors to communicate side-effect risk in PILs leads to high side-effect expectations. These expectations could contribute to nocebo-induced medication side-effects experienced by patients. Additional work is required to identify ways to improve the way risk information is conveyed in PILs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.