Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Drug Safety
Published in: Drug Safety 9/2013

01-09-2013 | Short Communication

The Additional Value of an E-Mail to Inform Healthcare Professionals of a Drug Safety Issue: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the Netherlands

Authors: Sigrid Piening, Pieter A. de Graeff, Sabine M. J. M. Straus, Flora M. Haaijer-Ruskamp, Peter G. M. Mol

Published in: Drug Safety | Issue 9/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The usefulness and the impact of Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs, or ‘Dear Doctor letters’) in changing the clinical behaviour of physicians have been debated. Changes in the current risk communication methods should preferably be based on the preferences of the healthcare professionals, to optimize the uptake of the message.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess whether safety issues are communicated more effectively with an additional e-mail sent by the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) than with the DHPC only.

Methods

A randomized controlled trial was conducted amongst ophthalmologists and hospital pharmacists in the Netherlands, who were the target group of a DHPC that was issued for pegaptanib, a drug that is administered intra-ocularly in patients with macular degeneration. The intervention group (N = 110) received the pegaptanib DHPC, as well as the MEB e-mail. The control group (N = 105) received the traditional paper-based DHPC only. Two weeks later, the study population received an invitation to fill out an online questionnaire. Questions were asked about the respondents’ knowledge and attitude regarding the pegaptanib issue, and any action they had consequently taken. Additional questions were asked about their satisfaction with the DHPC and the e-mail, and their preferred source of such information.

Results

Forty respondents (18.6 %) completed the questionnaire. Eighty-one percent of the respondents in the intervention group (N = 21) and 47 % of the control group (N = 19) correctly indicated that a serious increase in intra-ocular pressure could be caused by pegaptanib injections (Fishers’ exact test, p = 0.046). Nine respondents in the intervention group versus none of the control group respondents indicated that they had taken action in response to the pegaptanib safety issue (Fishers’ exact test, p = 0.01). The majority of both the intervention group and the control group confirmed that they would like to receive an MEB e-mail with safety information about drugs in the future (90 and 95 %, respectively).

Conclusion

The results of this study indicate that an additional e-mail might strengthen the uptake of the safety information provided to healthcare professionals, who prefer to receive an e-mail from the MEB as a source of such information, as well as the DHPC. This study may serve as a starting point for new strategies to improve risk communication regarding safety issues associated with drugs and its impact on prescribing.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Piening S, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, De Vries JTN, Van Der Elst ME, De Graeff PA, Straus SMJM, et al. Impact of safety-related regulatory action on clinical practice: a systematic review. Drug Saf. 2012;35(5):373–85.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Piening S, Reber KC, Wieringa JE, Straus SMJM, de Graeff PA, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, et al. Impact of safety-related regulatory action on drug use in ambulatory care in the Netherlands. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;91(5):838–45.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Dusetzina SB, Higashi AS, Dorsey ER, Conti R, Huskamp HA, Zhu S, et al. Impact of FDA drug risk communications on health care utilization and health behaviors: a systematic review. Med Care. 2012;50(6):466–78.PubMedCrossRef
4.
5.
6.
Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet. 2003;362(9391):1225–30.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Lee LY, Kortepeter CM, Willy ME, Nourjah P. Drug-risk communication to pharmacists: assessing the impact of risk-minimization strategies on the practice of pharmacy. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2008;48(4):494–500.CrossRef
8.
Piening S, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, De Graeff PA, Straus SMJM, Mol PGM. Healthcare professionals self-reported experiences and preferences related to direct healthcare professional communications: a survey conducted in the Netherlands. Drug Saf. 2012;35(11):1061–72.PubMed
9.
Morrato EH, Curbow B, Crum RM, Nowels C, Feinleib M. Communicating drug risk to physicians: challenges and opportunities. Int J Risk Saf Med. 2008;20(3):143–54.
10.
Theophile H, Miremont-Salame G, Robinson P, Moore N, Begaud B, Haramburu F. Relevance of a “dear doctor letter” to alert healthcare providers to new recommendations for vitamin D administration. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;67(7):681–6.PubMedCrossRef
11.
12.
Polimeni G, Russo A, Catania MA, Aiello A, Oteri A, Trifiro G, et al. Drug safety information through the internet: the experience of an Italian website. Drug Saf. 2009;32(3):245–53.PubMedCrossRef
13.
McCullough JL, Ostrom TM. Repetition of highly similar messages and attitude change. J Appl Psychol. 1974;59(3):395–7.CrossRef
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, Wu AW, Wilson MH, Abboud P-C, et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. J Am Med Assoc. 1999;282(15):1458–65.CrossRef
20.
Lundgren RE, McMakin AH. Risk communication. A handbook for communicating environmental, safety, and health risks. 3rd ed. Columbus: Battelle Press; 2004.
21.
Slovic P. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Anal. 1993;13(6):675–82.CrossRef
22.
Berry DC. Risk, communication and health psychology. 1st ed. Berkshire: Open University Press; 2004.
23.
Lofstedt RE. The impact of the COX-2 inhibitor issue on perceptions of the pharmaceutical industry: content analysis and communication implications. J Health Commun. 2007;12(5):471–91.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Walaski P. Risk and crisis communications: methods and messages. Hoboken: Wiley; 2011.CrossRef
25.
McComas KA. Defining moments in risk communication research: 1996–2005. J Health Commun. 2006;11(1):75–91.PubMedCrossRef
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Sino CG, Munnik A, Schuurmans MJ. Knowledge and perspectives of Dutch home healthcare nurses regarding medication frequently used by older people. Int J Older People Nurs. 2013;8(2):131–8.
31.
Crouch S, Robinson P, Pitts M. A comparison of general practitioner response rates to electronic and postal surveys in the setting of the National STI Prevention Program. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2011;35(2):187–9.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Suttle CM, Jalbert I, Alnahedh T. Examining the evidence base used by optometrists in Australia and New Zealand. Clin Exp Optom. 2012;95(1):28–36.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Goossens L, Knoester P. Rutten-Van Molken M. Avastin (bevacizumab), Macugen (pegaptanib) and Lucentis (ranibizumab): comparison of medication costs. Pharm Weekbl. 2008;143(16):75–9.
34.
Prieto L, Spooner A, Hidalgo-Simon A, Rubino A, Kurz X, Arlett P. Evaluation of the effectiveness of risk minimization measures. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(8):896–9.PubMedCrossRef
35.
36.
Slovic P, Peters E, Grana J, Berger S, Dieck GS. Risk perception of prescription drugs: results of a national survey. Drug Inf J. 2007;41(1):81–100.
37.
Edwards B, Chakraborty S. Risk communication and the pharmaceutical industry: what is the reality? Drug Saf. 2012;35(11):1027–40.PubMed
38.
39.
Fischhoff B. Why (cancer) risk communication can be hard. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999;25:7–13.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Weatherby LB, Nordstrom BL, Fife D, Walker AM. The impact of wording in “dear doctor” letters and in black box labels. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2002;72(6):735–42.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Mazor KM, Andrade SE, Auger J, Fish L, Gurwitz JH. Communicating safety information to physicians: an examination of dear doctor letters. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2005;14(12):869–75.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Reber KC, Piening S, Wieringa JE, Straus SMJM, Raine JM, De Graeff PA, et al. When direct healthcare professional communications have an impact on inappropriate and unsafe use of medicines. A retrospective analysis of determinants of impact of safety warnings. Clin Pharm Ther. 2013;93(4):360–5.
43.
Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel J, Goble R, et al. The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Anal. 1988;8(2):177–87.CrossRef
44.
Fischhoff B. Risk perception and communication unplugged—20 years of process. Risk Anal. 1995;15(2):137–45.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Bahri P. Public pharmacovigilance communication: a process calling for evidence-based, objective-driven strategies. Drug Saf. 2010;33(12):1065–79.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Deschepper R, Grigoryan L, Lundborg CS, Hofstede G, Cohen J, Kelen GV, et al. Are cultural dimensions relevant for explaining cross-national differences in antibiotic use in Europe? BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:123.
47.
Grigoryan L, Burgerhof JGM, Degener JE, Deschepper R, Lundborg CS, Monnet DL, et al. Attitudes, beliefs and knowledge concerning antibiotic use and self-medication: a comparative European study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16(11):1234–43.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
The Additional Value of an E-Mail to Inform Healthcare Professionals of a Drug Safety Issue: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the Netherlands
Authors
Sigrid Piening
Pieter A. de Graeff
Sabine M. J. M. Straus
Flora M. Haaijer-Ruskamp
Peter G. M. Mol
Publication date
01-09-2013
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Drug Safety / Issue 9/2013
Print ISSN: 0114-5916
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1942
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-013-0079-x

Other articles of this Issue 9/2013

Drug Safety 9/2013 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

Characterization of Statin-Associated Myopathy Case Reports in Thailand Using the Health Product Vigilance Center Database

Systematic Review

Tendon Injury and Fluoroquinolone Use: A Systematic Review

Letter to the Editor

Should Midazolam Drug–Drug Interactions be of Concern to Palliative Care Physicians?

Current Opinion

Scientific Evidence and Controversies About Pioglitazone and Bladder Cancer: Which Lessons Can Be Drawn?

Original Research Article

Safety of Artemisinin-Based Combination Therapies in Nigeria: A Cohort Event Monitoring Study

Original Research Article

Development and Initial Validation of a Patient-Reported Adverse Drug Event Questionnaire