ArticleBMC health services research2024
Strategies to enhance risk communication about medicines in Malaysia: a Delphi study among multinational experts.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundEffective risk communication about medicines is crucial to the success of all pharmacovigilance activities but remains a worldwide challenge. Risk communication has been conducted in Malaysia for decades, yet awareness on the communication methods remains low among healthcare professionals. While international guidelines are available, clear guidance on effectively communicating the risks of medicines in specific countries is scarce. This study aimed to establish a consensus on the priority strategies for enhancing risk communication about medicines by regulators.
methodsWe conducted a two-round modified Delphi survey among local and international communication experts, and also recipients of medicines risk communication in Malaysia. We developed a list of 37 strategies based on the findings of our previous studies. In Round 1, participants were asked to rate the priority for each strategy using a 5-point Likert scale and suggest additional strategies via free-text comments. Strategies scoring a mean of ≥ 3.75 were included in Round 2. We defined consensus for the final list of strategies a priori as > 75% agreement. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.
resultsOur final Delphi panel (n = 39, 93% response rate) comprised medicines communication experts from nine countries and Malaysian healthcare professionals. Following Round 1, we dropped 14 strategies and added 11 strategies proposed by panellists. In the second round, 21 strategies achieved consensus. The priority areas identified were to improve the format and content of risk communication, increase the use of technology, and increase collaboration with various stakeholders. Priority ratings for the strategy "to offer incentives to pharmaceutical companies which maintain effective communication systems" were significantly higher among recipients compared to communicators [χ
conclusionsOur study identified 21 priority strategies, which were used to develop a strategic plan for enhancing medicines risk communication. This plan is potentially adaptable to all countries with developing pharmacovigilance systems. The difference in views between communicators and recipients, as well as local and international panellists, highlights the importance of involving multiple stakeholders in research.
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.