ArticlePrimary health care research & development2019
Use of information sources regarding medicine side effects among the general population: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in Primary health care research & development, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Receipt of Medicines Information From the Internet and Other Information Sources Among Adult Medicine Users in Developed Economies, 2010-2025: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Prevalence of adverse drug reactions in the primary care setting: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Multicentre quality improvement initiative to improve patient education and safety in the prescription of Sodium-Glucose transporter 2 inhibitors.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Article
- A multinational cross-sectional study on knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards magnesium supplements.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Patients' Experiences and Preferences for Medicine Information: An International Comparison Between Malaysia, Thailand, Uganda, and England.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- Experiences of occupational nurses regarding non-adherent mineworkers with chronic illnesses.Health SA = SA Gesondheid · 2024Article
- Internet Use for Obtaining Medicine Information: Cross-sectional Survey.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Public awareness regarding the manufacturer provided information about medicine usage, safety, and adverse drug reactions in Balochistan, Pakistan.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Provision and Need for Medicine Information in Asia and Africa: A Scoping Review of the Literature.Drug safety · 2021Article
- Patient literacy and awareness of medicine safety.The International journal of pharmacy practice · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo determine the use and perceived value of different information sources that patients may use to support identification of medicine side effects; to explore associations between coping styles and use of information sources.
backgroundSide effects from medicines can have considerable negative impact on peoples' daily lives. As a result of an ageing UK population and attendant multi-morbidity, an increasing number of medicines are being prescribed for patients, leading to increased risk of unintended side effects.
methodsA cross-sectional survey of patients who use medicine, recruited from community pharmacies. The survey sought views on attributes of various information sources, their predicted and actual use, incorporating a shortened Side Effects Coping Questionnaire (SECope) scale and the abbreviated Miller Behavioural Style Scale (MBSS).
findingsOf 935 questionnaires distributed, 230 (25.0%) were returned, 61.3% from females; 44.7% were retired and 84.6% used at least one medicine regularly. 69.6% had experienced a side effect, resulting in 57.5% of these stopping the medicine. Patient information leaflets (PILs) and GPs were both predicted and actually most widely used sources, despite GPs being judged as relatively less accessible and PILs less trustworthy, particularly by regular medicine users. Pharmacists, considered both easy to access and trustworthy, were used by few in practice, while the internet was considered easy to access, but less trustworthy and was also little used. SECope sub-scales for non-adherence and information seeking showed positive associations with stopping a medicine and seeking information from a health professional. More high monitors than low monitors stopped a medicine themselves, but there were no differences in use of information sources. Information seeking following a side effect is a common strategy, potentially predicted by the SECope, but not the MBSS. Limited GP accessibility could contribute to high internet use. Further research could determine how the trustworthiness of PILs can be improved.
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.