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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Primary Care
Published in: BMC Primary Care 1/2014

Open Access 01-12-2014 | Research article

Patient information leaflets: informing or frightening? A focus group study exploring patients’ emotional reactions and subsequent behavior towards package leaflets of commonly prescribed medications in family practices

Authors: Oliver Rudolf Herber, Verena Gies, David Schwappach, Petra Thürmann, Stefan Wilm

Published in: BMC Primary Care | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The purpose of patient information leaflets (PILs) is to inform patients about the administration, precautions and potential side effects of their prescribed medication. Despite European Commission guidelines aiming at increasing readability and comprehension of PILs little is known about the potential risk information has on patients. This article explores patients’ reactions and subsequent behavior towards risk information conveyed in PILs of commonly prescribed drugs by general practitioners (GPs) for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes, hypertension or hypercholesterolemia; the most frequent cause for consultations in family practices in Germany.

Methods

We conducted six focus groups comprising 35 patients which were recruited in GP practices. Transcripts were read and coded for themes; categories were created by abstracting data and further refined into a coding framework.

Results

Three interrelated categories are presented: (i) The vast amount of side effects and drug interactions commonly described in PILs provoke various emotional reactions in patients which (ii) lead to specific patient behavior of which (iii) consulting the GP for assistance is among the most common. Findings show that current description of potential risk information caused feelings of fear and anxiety in the reader resulting in undesirable behavioral reactions.

Conclusions

Future PILs need to convey potential risk information in a language that is less frightening while retaining the information content required to make informed decisions about the prescribed medication. Thus, during the production process greater emphasis needs to be placed on testing the degree of emotional arousal provoked in patients when reading risk information to allow them to undertake a benefit-risk-assessment of their medication that is based on rational rather than emotional (fearful) reactions.
Literature
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Maat HP, Lentz L: Improving the usability of patient information leaflets. Patient Educ Couns. 2010, 80: 113-119. 10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.030.CrossRef
7.
Carrigan N, Raynor DK, Knapp P: Adequacy of patient information on adverse effects: an assessment of patient information leaflets in the UK. Drug Saf. 2008, 31: 305-312. 10.2165/00002018-200831040-00004.CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
Nink K, Schröder H: Zu Risiken und Nebenwirkungen: Lesen Sie die Packungsbeilage?. 2005, Bonn: WIdO, Wissenschaftliches Institut der AOK
10.
Hamrosi KK, Raynor DK, Aslani P: Pharmacist, general practitioner and consumer use of written medicine information in Australia: are they on the same page?. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2013, Available at doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2013.10.002
11.
McDonnell PJ, Jacobs MR: Hospital admissions resulting from preventable adverse drug reactions. Ann Pharmacother. 2002, 36: 1331-1336.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Rodgers PT, Ruffin DM: Medication nonadherence: part II — a pilot study in patients with congestive heart failure. Manag Care Interface. 1998, 11: 67-69. 75PubMed
13.
Fuchs J, Hippius M: Inappropriate dosage instructions in package inserts. Patient Educ Couns. 2007, 67: 157-168. 10.1016/j.pec.2007.03.009.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Fuchs J, Heyer T, Langenhan D, Hippius M: Influence of front sizes on the readability and comprehensibility of package inserts. Pharm Ind. 2008, 70: 584-592.
15.
Anlauf M: Antihypertonika. Arzneiverordnungsreport. Edited by: Schwabe U, Paffrath D. 2006, Berlin: Springer, 413-
16.
Robert Koch-Institut: Gesundheit in Deutschland. Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes. 2006, Berlin: Robert Koch-Institut
17.
McLafferty I: Focus group interviews as a data collecting strategy. J Adv Nurs. 2004, 48: 187-194. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03186.x.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Halcomb EJ, Gholizadeh L, DiGiacomo M, Phillips J, Davidson PM: Literature review: considerations in undertaking focus group research with culturally and linguistically diverse groups. J Clin Nurs. 2007, 16: 1000-1011. 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01760.x.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Morgan DL: Focus groups. Annu Rev Sociol. 1996, 22: 129-152. 10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.129.CrossRef
20.
Jayasekara RS: Focus groups in nursing research: methodological perspectives. Nurs Outlook. 2012, 60: 411-416. 10.1016/j.outlook.2012.02.001.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Kruse J: Qualitative Interviewforschung. Ein integrativer Ansatz. 2014, Weinheim: Juventa
22.
Creswell J: Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. 1998, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
23.
Kidd PS, Parshall MB: Getting the focus and the group: enhancing analytical rigor in focus groups research. Qual Health Res. 2000, 10: 293-308. 10.1177/104973200129118453.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Ritchie J, Spencer L: Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. Analyzing Qualitative Data. Edited by: Bryman A, Burgess R. 1994, London & New York: Routedge, 172-194.
25.
Lincoln YS, Guba EG: Naturalistic Inquiry. 1985, Newbury Park, CA: Sage
26.
Koo M, Krass I, Aslani P: Consumer opinions on medicines information and factors affecting its use - an Australian experience. Int J Pharm Pract. 2002, 10: 107-114. 10.1111/j.2042-7174.2002.tb00595.x.CrossRef
27.
Lee DYL, Armour C, Krass I: The development and evaluation of written medicines information for type 2 diabletes. Health Educ Res. 2007, 22: 918-930.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Fuchs J, Götze EA: Patientengerechte Arzneimittelinformation in Packungsbeilagen. Pharm Ind. 2009, 71: 1094-1100.
29.
Weitbrecht WU, Voßkämper C: Influence of the drug package information paper on compliance of neurological and psychiatric outpatients. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr. 2002, 70: 178-184. 10.1055/s-2002-24639.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Clerehan R, Buchbinder R, Moodie J: A linguistic framework for assessing the quality of written patient information: its use in assessing methotrexate information for rheumatoid arthritis. Health Educ Res. 2005, 20: 334-344. 10.1093/her/cyg123.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Gal I, Prigat A: Why organizations continue to create patient information leaflets with readability and usability problems: an exploratory study. Health Educ Res. 2005, 20: 485-493. 10.1093/her/cyh009.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Vander Stichele RH, De Potter B, Vyncke P, Bogaert MG: Attitude of physicians toward patient package inserts for medication information in Belgium. Patient Educ Couns. 1995, 28: 5-13.CrossRef
33.
Edwards B, Chakraborty S: Risk communication and the pharmaceutical industry. What is the reality?. Drug Saf. 2012, 35: 1027-1040. 10.1007/BF03261989.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Davis JJ, Cross E, Crowley J: Pharmaceutical websites and the communication of risk information. J Health Commun. 2007, 12: 29-39. 10.1080/10810730601091326.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Williams B, Brown D: Direct to consumer internet advertising of statins: an assessment of safety. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012, 21: 352-365. 10.1002/pds.3208.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Nair K, Dolovich L, Cassels A, McCormack J, Levine M, Gray J, Mann K, Burns S: What patients want to know about their medications. Focus group study of patient and clinician perspectives. Can Fam Physician. 2002, 48: 104-110.PubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Fraenkel L, McGraw S: What are the essential elements to enable patient participation in medical decision making?. J Gen Intern Med. 2007, 22: 614-619. 10.1007/s11606-007-0149-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Kumar R, Korthuis PT, Saha S, Chander G, Sharp V, Cohn J, Moore R, Beach MC: Decision-making role preferences among patients with HIV: associations with patient and provider characteristics and communication behaviors. J Gen Intern Med. 2010, 25: 517-523. 10.1007/s11606-010-1275-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Hartley CA, Phelps EA: Anxiety and decision-making. Biol Psychiatry. 2012, 72: 1-8. Available at doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.12.027CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Patient information leaflets: informing or frightening? A focus group study exploring patients’ emotional reactions and subsequent behavior towards package leaflets of commonly prescribed medications in family practices
Authors
Oliver Rudolf Herber
Verena Gies
David Schwappach
Petra Thürmann
Stefan Wilm
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Primary Care / Issue 1/2014
Electronic ISSN: 2731-4553
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-15-163

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

BMC Primary Care 1/2014 Go to the issue

Research article

Prostate specific antigen testing is associated with men’s psychological and physical health and their healthcare utilisation in a nationally representative sample: a cross-sectional study

Research article

Tools for primary care patient safety: a narrative review

Research article

Association of self-rated health with multimorbidity, chronic disease and psychosocial factors in a large middle-aged and older cohort from general practice: a cross-sectional study

Research article

What is the impact of primary care model type on specialist referral rates? A cross-sectional study

Research article

Developing a good practice model to evaluate the effectiveness of comprehensive primary health care in local communities

Research article

Comparison of patient experiences of the osteoarthritis consultation with GP attitudes and beliefs to OA: a narrative review