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 8/2013

01-08-2013 | Original Research Article

Patients’ Use of Information about Medicine Side Effects in Relation to Experiences of Suspected Adverse Drug Reactions: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Medical In-Patients

Authors: Janet Krska, Charles W. Morecroft

Published in: Drug Safety | Issue 8/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are common, and information about medicines is increasingly widely available to the public. However, relatively little work has explored how people use medicines information to help them assess symptoms that may be suspected ADRs.

Objective

Our objective was to determine how patients use patient information leaflets (PILs) or other medicines information sources and whether information use differs depending on experiences of suspected ADRs.

Method

This was a cross-sectional survey conducted in six National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in North West England involving medical in-patients taking at least two regular medicines prior to admission. The survey was administered via a questionnaire and covered use of the PIL and other medicines information sources, perceived knowledge about medicines risks/ADRs, experiences of suspected ADRs, plus demographic information.

Results

Of the 1,218 respondents to the survey, 18.8 % never read the PIL, whilst 6.5 % only do so if something unexpected happens. Educational level was related to perceived knowledge about medicines risks, but not to reading the PIL or seeking further information about medicines risks. Over half the respondents (56.0 %) never sought more information about possible side effects of medicines. A total of 57.2 % claimed they had experienced a suspected ADR. Of these 85.9 % were either very sure or fairly sure this was a reaction to a medicine. Over half of those experiencing a suspected ADR (53.8 %) had read the PIL, of whom 36.2 % did so before the suspected ADR occurred, the remainder afterwards. Reading the PIL helped 84.8 % of these respondents to decide they had experienced an ADR. Educational level, general knowledge of medicines risks and number of regular medicines used all increased the likelihood of experiencing an ADR.

Conclusion

More patients should be encouraged to read the PIL supplied with medicines. The results support the view that most patients feel knowledgeable about medicines risks and suspected ADRs and value information about side effects, but that reading about side effects in PILs or other medicines information sources does not lead to experiences of suspected ADRs.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, Green C, Scott AK, Walley TJ, et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18820 patients. BMJ. 2004;329:15–9.CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
Ghandi TK, Weingart SN, Borus J, et al. Adverse drug events in ambulatory care. New Engl J Med. 2003;348(16):1556–64.CrossRef
4.
Weingart SN, Gandhi TK, Seger AC, Seger DL, Borus J, et al. Patient-reported medication symptoms in primary care. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:234–40.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Jarernsiripornkul N, Krska J, Capps PAG, Richards RME, Lee A. Patient reporting of potential adverse drug reactions: a methodological study. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2002;53:318–25.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Carpay JA, Aldenkamp AP, van Donselaar CA. Complaints associated with anti-epileptic drugs: results from a community-based study. Seizure. 2005;14:198–206.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Krska J, Jones L, McKinney J, Wilson C. Medicines safety: experiences and perceptions of the general public in Liverpool. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20(10):1098–103.CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
Krska J, Anderson CA, Murphy E, Avery AJ, on behalf of the Yellow Card Study Collaboration. How patient reporters identify adverse drug reactions: a qualitative study of reporting via the UK Yellow Card Scheme. Drug Saf. 2011;34(5):429–36.CrossRefPubMed
10.
van Grootheest AC, de Jong-van den Berg L. Review: patients’ role in reporting adverse drug reactions. Exp Opin. Drug Saf. 2004;3:363–8.
11.
Golomb BA, McGraw JJ, Evans MA, et al. Physician response to patient reports of adverse drug effects. Drug Saf. 2007;30:669–75.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Anderson CA, Krska J, Murphy E, Avery AJ, on behalf of the Yellow Card Study Collaboration. The importance of direct patient reporting of ADRs: a patient perspective. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;72(5):806–22.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Krska J, Morecroft CW. Informing patients about medicines: a hospital in-patient survey in England. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;90:276–8.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Raynor DK, Silcock J, Knapp P, Edmondson H. How do patients use medicine information leaflets in the UK? Int J Pharm Pract. 2007;15:209–18.CrossRef
15.
Raynor DK, Blenkinsopp A, Knapp P, Grime J, Nicolson DJ, Pollock K, et al. A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative research on the role and effectiveness of written information available to patients about individual medicines. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11(5):1–98.
16.
Lamb GC, Green SS, Heron J. Can physicians inform patients about potential side effects without fear of causing those side effects? Arch Intern Med. 1994;154:2753–6.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Howland JS, Baker MG, Poe T. Does patient education cause side effects? A controlled trial. J Fam Pract. 1990;31:62–4.PubMed
18.
Myers ED, Calvert EJ. The effect of forewarning on the occurrence of side effects and discontinuance of medication in patients on dothiepin. J Int Med Res. 1976;4:237–40.PubMed
19.
Nunes V, Neilson J, O’Flynn N, Calvert N, Kuntze S, Smithson H, et al. Clinical guidelines and evidence review for medicines adherence: involving patients in decisions about prescribed medicines and supporting adherence. London: National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care and Royal College of General Practitioners; 2009.
20.
Ziegler DK, Mosier MC, Bauenaver M, Okuyemi K. How much information about adverse effects of medication do patients want from physicians? Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(5):706–13.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Patients’ Use of Information about Medicine Side Effects in Relation to Experiences of Suspected Adverse Drug Reactions: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Medical In-Patients
Authors
Janet Krska
Charles W. Morecroft
Publication date
01-08-2013
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Drug Safety / Issue 8/2013
Print ISSN: 0114-5916
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1942
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-013-0065-3

Other articles of this Issue 8/2013

Drug Safety 8/2013 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

Long-Term Proton Pump Inhibitor Use is Associated with Vascular Calcification in Chronic Kidney Disease: A Cross-Sectional Study Using Propensity Score Analysis

Short Communication

Effects of a Sitagliptin Safety Alert on Prescription Behaviour for Oral Antihyperglycaemic Drugs: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study of Prescription Receipt Data in Japan

Original Research Article

Risk of Bladder Cancer in Diabetic Patients Treated with Rosiglitazone or Pioglitazone: A Nested Case–Control Study

Original Research Article

Choosing Thresholds for Statistical Signal Detection with the Proportional Reporting Ratio

Original Research Article

Traceability of Biopharmaceuticals in Spontaneous Reporting Systems: A Cross-Sectional Study in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and EudraVigilance Databases

Original Research Article

Assessment of Case Definitions for Identifying Acute Liver Injury in Large Observational Databases