Author
Listed:
- Erika A. Waters
- Thorsten Pachur
- Graham A. Colditz
Abstract
Background . Side effects prompt some patients to forego otherwise-beneficial therapies. This study explored which characteristics make side effects particularly aversive. Methods . We used a psychometric approach, originating from research on risk perception, to identify the factors (or components) underlying side effect perceptions. Women ( N = 149) aged 40 to 74 years were recruited from a patient registry to complete an online experiment. Participants were presented with hypothetical scenarios in which an effective and necessary medication conferred a small risk of a single side effect (e.g., nausea, dizziness). They rated a broad range of side effects on several characteristics (e.g., embarrassing, treatable). In addition, we collected 4 measures of aversiveness for each side effect: choosing to take the medication, willingness to pay to avoid the side effect (WTP), negative affective attitude associated with the side effect, and how each side effect ranks among others in terms of undesirability. A principal components analysis (PCA) was used to identify the components underlying side effect perceptions. Then, for each aversiveness measure separately, regression analyses were used to determine which components predicted differences in aversiveness among the side effects. Results . The PCA revealed 4 components underlying side effect perceptions: affective challenge (e.g., frightening), social challenge (e.g., disfiguring), physical challenge (e.g., painful), and familiarity (e.g., common). Side effects perceived as affectively and physically challenging elicited the highest levels of aversiveness across all 4 measures. Conclusions . Understanding what side effect characteristics are most aversive may inform interventions to improve medical decisions and facilitate the translation of novel biomedical therapies into clinical practice.
Suggested Citation
Erika A. Waters & Thorsten Pachur & Graham A. Colditz, 2017.
"Side Effect Perceptions and Their Impact on Treatment Decisions in Women,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(3), pages 193-203, April.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:3:p:193-203
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X16650664
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:3:p:193-203. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.