↓ Skip to main content

People’s Understanding of Verbal Risk Descriptors in Patient Information Leaflets: A Cross-Sectional National Survey of 18- to 65-Year-Olds in England

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Safety, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
People’s Understanding of Verbal Risk Descriptors in Patient Information Leaflets: A Cross-Sectional National Survey of 18- to 65-Year-Olds in England
Published in
Drug Safety, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40264-017-0542-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca K. Webster, John Weinman, G James Rubin

Abstract

Evidence suggests the current verbal risk descriptors used to communicate side effect risk in patient information leaflets (PILs) are overestimated. The 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. A 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. A 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. The 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 6 23%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 12%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Other 6 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 9 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 23%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 19%
Psychology 3 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Other 2 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 June 2019.
All research outputs
#3,324,310
of 13,221,389 outputs
Outputs from Drug Safety
#390
of 1,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,342
of 267,494 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Safety
#9
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,221,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,249 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,494 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.