Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Objective To explore the impact of providing additional information about the potential benefits of simvastatin in a patient leaflet on attitudes and beliefs.
Design Interview-based study using a generic qualitative approach and framework analysis.
Participants 21 participants receiving a prescription for simvastatin were recruited from a general practitioner practice (from a total of 120). 8 participants were women; the age range was 55–92.
Intervention Participants were provided with leaflets showing one of 3 types of additional benefit information: (1) textual statement, (2) number needed to treat (NNT) or (3) natural frequency. Semistructured interviews explored patient's attitudes and beliefs.
Results A descriptive narrative of preferences for format suggested patients prefer textual as opposed to numerical benefit information. Significant barriers to the acceptance of numerical benefit information included difficulty in understanding the numbers. Patients overestimated the benefits of statins and expressed surprise at the numerical information.
Conclusions Textual information was preferred but numerical information, in particular in the form of a natural frequency, may help patients make judgements about their medicines. NNTs were found to be very difficult to understand. This raises the prospect that some patients might reject medicines because of disappointment with the perceived low benefits of their medicines. The self-reported impact on behaviour appeared minimal with reports of intentions to ‘do what the doctor tells me’. Further research is needed to explore the impact of such statements on people who are yet to be prescribed a statin.
- patient information
- risk benefit communication
- medicines information
- risk format
This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors All authors contributed to the conception and design of the research. RD carried out all recruitment and interview activities. RD, JM, DKR and PK contributed to development of the analytical framework. RD and JM analysed the data. RD drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to interpretation of the analysis, writing and reviewing the manuscript.
Funding RD's work on this study was supported by a doctoral studentship funded jointly by the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, UK.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval NRES Committee Yorkshire & the Humber—Humber Bridge: 13/YH/0180.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement No additional data are available.