Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26547718›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2016

Consumer Understanding, Preferences, and Responses to Different Versions of Drug Safety Messages in the United States: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Lauren McCormack, R Craig Lefebvre, Carla Bann, Olivia Taylor, Paula Rausch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Comparing drug safety of hepatitis C therapies using post-market data.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

5 authors.

Lauren McCormackCenter for Communication Science, RTI International, 3040 East Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709-2194, USA. lmac@rti.org.
R Craig LefebvreCenter for Communication Science, RTI International, 3040 East Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709-2194, USA.
Carla BannDivision for Statistics and Data Sciences, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Olivia TaylorCenter for Communication Science, RTI International, 3040 East Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709-2194, USA.
Paula RauschUS Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Office of Communications, Silver Spring, MD, USA.

Funding

Communicating Science to the Public to Promote Informed Decision MakingU18FD004608 · FDA · RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE · PI MCCORMACK, LAUREN ANN · 2012 to 2016
$1.9M
FDA HHS #1 U18 FD004608-01FDA HHS U18 FD004608
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAs part of its mission, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) communicates with the public regularly about the benefits and risks of prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs. Effectively communicating risk, however, is a significant public health challenge.

objectiveTo better understand how different populations understand information communicated by the FDA about drug safety, we conducted a randomized experiment to examine comprehension and other measures of effectiveness of drug safety messages that occurred in a post-market surveillance phase.

methodsWe used an Internet panel survey of 1244 consumers, of whom 58% used prescription drugs in the past year. Half of the sample panel was randomized to read a previous FDA Drug Safety Communication (DSC) with the drug name changed, and the other half was randomized to read a revised version of the same DSC. We examined how making certain modifications to the way drug risk information is communicated has an impact on comprehension and behavioral intentions, including the user's likelihood of discontinuing the drug. We also studied how comprehension varied by respondent characteristics, health literacy skills, risk perceptions, and trust in the message.

resultsBased on a five-item comprehension index, the revised version of the message was associated with significantly greater comprehension of the information relative to the standard version (63 vs 52% correct, p < 0.001). Significantly more respondents found the revised version to be clear (82 vs 73%, p < 0.000), while fewer in that group reported learning something new (78% vs 84%, p = 0.015). No significant differences emerged between the two groups in terms of the message being informative, convincing, or helpful. We found no significant differences between the two groups in terms of behavioral intentions, risk perception, and trust.

conclusionsWe found that making plain language changes to the DSC significantly increased consumers' level of comprehension of its content, providing support for ongoing use and further exploration of these strategies in pharmacovigilance communication research. The study findings have important implications for future drug safety and other communication messages related to prescription drugs.

Indexed as

ComprehensionConsumer BehaviorDrug LabelingDrug PrescriptionsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsPatient Education as TopicPatient SafetyRandom AllocationUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug Administration

Identifiers

PMID26547718
PMCPMC4735220

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.