↓ Skip to main content

Understanding adverse drug reactions in package leaflets – an exploratory survey among health care professionals

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Understanding adverse drug reactions in package leaflets – an exploratory survey among health care professionals
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-1160-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Viktoria Mühlbauer, Ingrid Mühlhauser

Abstract

Current German or UK package leaflets do not contain an explicit notice that the listing of side effects does not imply that they are caused by the drug. Causal interpretations by patients and lay people are frequently observed. The authors examined whether health professionals understand that there is not necessarily a causal relation between drug intake and the frequency of side effects and whether adding placebo comparison improves understanding. Exploratory survey consisting of eight assessments, each containing 2-6 survey items, and focus groups with one survey sample using questionnaires on adverse reactions in standard package leaflets and modified package leaflets supplemented with placebo comparison. Participants were convenience samples of 379 health professionals including 153 physicians (80 gynaecologists, 124 diabetes experts - physicians, nurses, and others, 39 medical students in their last year at university, 49 first year health science and education students with completed vocational training and professional experience in various health care professions and 87 pharmacists/pharmacy students). They were asked to rate how often the different adverse reactions listed were caused by drug intake. All surveys were carried out within university seminars and postgraduate lectures from April 2014 to June 2015 in Germany. Response rate was 86 % or higher. Without placebo comparison, the majority of participants responded that the drug causes adverse reactions with the frequency given in the package leaflet or even more often (95 % of health science students, 100 % of medical students, 60 to 80 % of physicians and 66 % of pharmacists/pharmacy students). Simply adding placebo comparison in a table did not prevent misunderstanding. Analysis of focus groups with health science students supported the lack of understanding. In the present surveys, health professionals had major difficulties understanding frequency information on side effects in package leaflets. The great majority erroneously implied a causal relation between drug intake and the frequency of side effects, even though most side effects listed are symptoms commonly experienced in daily life.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 20%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Other 2 8%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 3 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 20%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 4%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 3 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 19 September 2018.
All research outputs
#1,356,584
of 13,528,132 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#587
of 4,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,346
of 282,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#40
of 302 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,528,132 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,541 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 282,059 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 302 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.