King's College London

Research portal

People’s understanding of verbal risk descriptors in patient information leaflets. A cross-sectional national survey of 18 to 65 year olds in England.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

People’s understanding of verbal risk descriptors in patient information leaflets. A cross-sectional national survey of 18 to 65 year olds in England. / Webster, Becca; Weinman, John ; Rubin, G James.

In: Drug Safety, Vol. 40, No. 8, 08.2017, p. 743-754.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Webster, B, Weinman, J & Rubin, GJ 2017, 'People’s understanding of verbal risk descriptors in patient information leaflets. A cross-sectional national survey of 18 to 65 year olds in England.', Drug Safety, vol. 40, no. 8, pp. 743-754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-017-0542-1

APA

Webster, B., Weinman, J., & Rubin, G. J. (2017). People’s understanding of verbal risk descriptors in patient information leaflets. A cross-sectional national survey of 18 to 65 year olds in England. Drug Safety, 40(8), 743-754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-017-0542-1

Vancouver

Webster B, Weinman J, Rubin GJ. People’s understanding of verbal risk descriptors in patient information leaflets. A cross-sectional national survey of 18 to 65 year olds in England. Drug Safety. 2017 Aug;40(8):743-754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-017-0542-1

Author

Webster, Becca ; Weinman, John ; Rubin, G James. / People’s understanding of verbal risk descriptors in patient information leaflets. A cross-sectional national survey of 18 to 65 year olds in England. In: Drug Safety. 2017 ; Vol. 40, No. 8. pp. 743-754.

Bibtex Download

@article{679da06d7f9248658e280c397aab262d,
title = "People{\textquoteright}s understanding of verbal risk descriptors in patient information leaflets. A cross-sectional national survey of 18 to 65 year olds in England.",
abstract = "IntroductionEvidence suggests the current verbal risk descriptors used to communicate side effect risk in patient information leaflets (PILs) are overestimated.ObjectivesThe aim was to establish how people understand the verbal risk descriptors recommended for use in PILs by the European Commission (EC), and alternative verbal risk descriptors, in the context of mild and severe side effects.MethodsA cross-sectional online survey was carried out by a market research company recruiting participants aged between 18 and 65 years living in England. Data were collected between 18 March and 1 April 2016. Participants were given a hypothetical scenario regarding the risk of mild or severe medication side effects and asked to estimate how many out of 10,000 people would be affected for each of the verbal risk descriptors being tested.ResultsA total of 1003 participants were included in the final sample. The risks conveyed by the EC recommended verbal risk descriptors were greatly overestimated by participants. Two distinct distributions were apparent for participant estimates of side effect risks: those for {\textquoteleft}high risk{\textquoteright} verbal descriptors (e.g. {\textquoteleft}common{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}likely{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}high chance{\textquoteright}) and those for {\textquoteleft}low risk{\textquoteright} verbal descriptors (e.g. {\textquoteleft}uncommon{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}unlikely{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}low chance{\textquoteright}). Within these two groups, the distributions were near to identical regardless of what adverb (e.g. very, high, fair) or adjective (e.g. common, likely, chance) was used. The EC recommended verbal risk descriptors were more likely to be understood in accordance with their intended meanings when describing severe side effects. Very few demographic or psychological factors were consistently associated with how well participants understood the EC recommended verbal risk descriptors.DiscussionThe current verbal risk descriptors used in PILs are ineffective at best and misleading at worst. Discontinuing the use of verbal risk descriptors would limit the likelihood of people overestimating the risk of side effects.",
author = "Becca Webster and John Weinman and Rubin, {G James}",
year = "2017",
month = aug,
doi = "10.1007/s40264-017-0542-1",
language = "English",
volume = "40",
pages = "743--754",
journal = "Drug Safety",
issn = "0114-5916",
publisher = "Adis International Ltd",
number = "8",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - People’s understanding of verbal risk descriptors in patient information leaflets. A cross-sectional national survey of 18 to 65 year olds in England.

AU - Webster, Becca

AU - Weinman, John

AU - Rubin, G James

PY - 2017/8

Y1 - 2017/8

N2 - IntroductionEvidence suggests the current verbal risk descriptors used to communicate side effect risk in patient information leaflets (PILs) are overestimated.ObjectivesThe aim was to establish how people understand the verbal risk descriptors recommended for use in PILs by the European Commission (EC), and alternative verbal risk descriptors, in the context of mild and severe side effects.MethodsA cross-sectional online survey was carried out by a market research company recruiting participants aged between 18 and 65 years living in England. Data were collected between 18 March and 1 April 2016. Participants were given a hypothetical scenario regarding the risk of mild or severe medication side effects and asked to estimate how many out of 10,000 people would be affected for each of the verbal risk descriptors being tested.ResultsA total of 1003 participants were included in the final sample. The risks conveyed by the EC recommended verbal risk descriptors were greatly overestimated by participants. Two distinct distributions were apparent for participant estimates of side effect risks: those for ‘high risk’ verbal descriptors (e.g. ‘common’, ‘likely’, ‘high chance’) and those for ‘low risk’ verbal descriptors (e.g. ‘uncommon’, ‘unlikely’, ‘low chance’). Within these two groups, the distributions were near to identical regardless of what adverb (e.g. very, high, fair) or adjective (e.g. common, likely, chance) was used. The EC recommended verbal risk descriptors were more likely to be understood in accordance with their intended meanings when describing severe side effects. Very few demographic or psychological factors were consistently associated with how well participants understood the EC recommended verbal risk descriptors.DiscussionThe current verbal risk descriptors used in PILs are ineffective at best and misleading at worst. Discontinuing the use of verbal risk descriptors would limit the likelihood of people overestimating the risk of side effects.

AB - IntroductionEvidence suggests the current verbal risk descriptors used to communicate side effect risk in patient information leaflets (PILs) are overestimated.ObjectivesThe aim was to establish how people understand the verbal risk descriptors recommended for use in PILs by the European Commission (EC), and alternative verbal risk descriptors, in the context of mild and severe side effects.MethodsA cross-sectional online survey was carried out by a market research company recruiting participants aged between 18 and 65 years living in England. Data were collected between 18 March and 1 April 2016. Participants were given a hypothetical scenario regarding the risk of mild or severe medication side effects and asked to estimate how many out of 10,000 people would be affected for each of the verbal risk descriptors being tested.ResultsA total of 1003 participants were included in the final sample. The risks conveyed by the EC recommended verbal risk descriptors were greatly overestimated by participants. Two distinct distributions were apparent for participant estimates of side effect risks: those for ‘high risk’ verbal descriptors (e.g. ‘common’, ‘likely’, ‘high chance’) and those for ‘low risk’ verbal descriptors (e.g. ‘uncommon’, ‘unlikely’, ‘low chance’). Within these two groups, the distributions were near to identical regardless of what adverb (e.g. very, high, fair) or adjective (e.g. common, likely, chance) was used. The EC recommended verbal risk descriptors were more likely to be understood in accordance with their intended meanings when describing severe side effects. Very few demographic or psychological factors were consistently associated with how well participants understood the EC recommended verbal risk descriptors.DiscussionThe current verbal risk descriptors used in PILs are ineffective at best and misleading at worst. Discontinuing the use of verbal risk descriptors would limit the likelihood of people overestimating the risk of side effects.

U2 - 10.1007/s40264-017-0542-1

DO - 10.1007/s40264-017-0542-1

M3 - Article

VL - 40

SP - 743

EP - 754

JO - Drug Safety

JF - Drug Safety

SN - 0114-5916

IS - 8

ER -

View graph of relations

© 2018 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454