IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/drugsa/v40y2017i1d10.1007_s40264-016-0466-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pharmaceutical Benefit–Risk Communication Tools: A Review of the Literature

Author

Listed:
  • Dominic Way

    (King’s College London, Strand)

  • Hortense Blazsin

    (MINES ParisTech, Research Center on Risk and Crisis)

  • Ragnar Löfstedt

    (King’s College London, Strand)

  • Frederic Bouder

    (Maastricht University)

Abstract

This paper reviews the main tools for communicating benefit–risk medicines information to patients that are used, or could be used, by pharmaceutical regulators. One highly successful tool from the food safety sector (front-of-package traffic-light labelling) and the mental models approach (which provides a framework for developing new tools) are also reviewed as they show great promise for being usefully adapted to the pharmaceutical context. The evolution of benefit–risk medicines communication is first contextualised within the broader risk communication literature. Three distinct goals are then made explicit before critically examining the evidence for and against tools developed in the US (e.g. at the Food and Drug Administration [FDA]) and Europe (e.g. at the European Medicines Agency [EMA]). These goals are (i) sharing information (e.g. publishing clinical trial and adverse event data online); (ii) changing patients’ beliefs by conveying factual knowledge (e.g. patient information leaflets and the drugs facts box); and (iii) changing behaviour (e.g. patient alert cards and warning labels). The mental models approach and traffic-light labelling, developed outside the pharmaceutical context, are then examined. Ultimately, the paper provides a helicopter view of the variety of benefit–risk communication tools that are used, or could be used, by pharmaceutical regulators in the US and Europe.

Suggested Citation

  • Dominic Way & Hortense Blazsin & Ragnar Löfstedt & Frederic Bouder, 2017. "Pharmaceutical Benefit–Risk Communication Tools: A Review of the Literature," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 15-36, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:40:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s40264-016-0466-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s40264-016-0466-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-016-0466-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40264-016-0466-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1997. "Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 681-692, March.
    2. Breakwell,Glynis M., 2014. "The Psychology of Risk," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107602700, October.
    3. Demortain, David, 2008. "Institutional polymorphism: the designing of the European Food Safety Authority with regard to the European Medicines Agency," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 36534, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Kornelia Hagen, 2010. "Nutritional Information: Traffic Light Labelling Is the Best Way to Reach Consumers," Weekly Report, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 6(19), pages 141-151.
    5. Breakwell,Glynis M., 2014. "The Psychology of Risk," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107017016, October.
    6. Dominic Way & Frederic Bouder & Ragnar Löfstedt & Darrick Evensen, 2016. "Medicines transparency at the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in the new information age: the perspectives of patients," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(9), pages 1185-1215, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pitchaya Nualdaisri & Sarah A. Corlett & Janet Krska, 2021. "Provision and Need for Medicine Information in Asia and Africa: A Scoping Review of the Literature," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 421-437, April.
    2. Dominic H. P. Balog-Way & Darrick Evensen & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2020. "Pharmaceutical Benefit–Risk Perception and Age Differences in the USA and Germany," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 43(11), pages 1141-1156, November.
    3. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Domingues, Rita & Costas, Susana & Jesus, Saul & Ferreira, Óscar, 2017. "SENSE OF PLACE, RISK PERCEPTIONS AND PREPAREDNESS OF A COASTAL POPULATION AT RISK (Faro Beach, Portugal): A qualitative content analysis," Journal of Tourism, Sustainability and Well-being, Cinturs - Research Centre for Tourism, Sustainability and Well-being, University of Algarve, vol. 5(3), pages 163-175.
    2. John D. Graham & John A. Rupp & Olga Schenk, 2015. "Unconventional Gas Development in the USA: Exploring the Risk Perception Issues," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(10), pages 1770-1788, October.
    3. Angelo Panno & Annalisa Theodorou & Giuseppe Alessio Carbone & Evelina De Longis & Chiara Massullo & Gianluca Cepale & Giuseppe Carrus & Claudio Imperatori & Giovanni Sanesi, 2021. "Go Greener, Less Risk: Access to Nature Is Associated with Lower Risk Taking in Different Domains during the COVID-19 Lockdown," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-17, September.
    4. Rusi Jaspal, 2022. "Chemsex, Identity and Sexual Health among Gay and Bisexual Men," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-16, September.
    5. Aistė Balžekienė & Audronė Telešienė & Vaidas Morkevičius, 2022. "Spatial Dependencies and the Relationship between Subjective Perception and Objective Environmental Risks in Lithuania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, March.
    6. Andrzej Robert Skrzypczak & Emil Andrzej Karpiński & Natalia Maja Józefacka & Robert Podstawski, 2022. "Impact of Personal Experience of COVID-19 Disease on Recreational Anglers’ Attitudes and Behaviors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-17, December.
    7. Domingues, Rita & Costas, Susana & Neves Jesus, Saul & Ferreira, Óscar, 2019. "Assessing stakeholders’ risk perceptions in a vulnerable coastal tourism destination (Faro beach, Southern Portugal)," Journal of Tourism, Sustainability and Well-being, Cinturs - Research Centre for Tourism, Sustainability and Well-being, University of Algarve, vol. 7(1), pages 22-38.
    8. Max Boholm, 2019. "Risk and Quantification: A Linguistic Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1243-1261, June.
    9. Han Jiang & Albert A. Cannella & Jie Jiao, 2018. "Does Desperation Breed Deceiver? A Behavioral Model of New Venture Opportunism," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 42(5), pages 769-796, September.
    10. Anne-Marie Lebrun & Roxane Corbel & Patrick Bouchet, 2022. "Impacts of Covid-19 on travel intention for summer 2020: a trend in proximity tourism mediated by an attitude towards Covid-19," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 16(3), pages 469-501, September.
    11. Andrea Guati-Rojo & Christina Demski & Wouter Poortinga & Agustin Valera-Medina, 2021. "Public Attitudes and Concerns about Ammonia as an Energy Vector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-14, November.
    12. Kala Saravanamuthu, 2018. "How risk information and stakeholder‐participation affect the sustainability of collaborative decisions: A case study on how the sustainability of stakeholder decisions is affected by different levels," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(7), pages 1067-1078, November.
    13. Linn Rabe & Rolf Lidskog, 2024. "Planning and Perceptions: Exploring Municipal Officials’ Views on Residents’ Climate Preparedness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-15, May.
    14. Fredy S. Monge-Rodríguez & He Jiang & Liwei Zhang & Andy Alvarado-Yepez & Anahí Cardona-Rivero & Enma Huaman-Chulluncuy & Analy Torres-Mejía, 2021. "Psychological Factors Affecting Risk Perception of COVID-19: Evidence from Peru and China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(12), pages 1-16, June.
    15. Craig W. Trumbo & Lori Peek & Michelle A. Meyer & Holly L. Marlatt & Eve Gruntfest & Brian D. McNoldy & Wayne H. Schubert, 2016. "A Cognitive‐Affective Scale for Hurricane Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(12), pages 2233-2246, December.
    16. Yu Zhang & John A. Rupp & John D. Graham, 2021. "Contrasting Public and Scientific Assessments of Fracking," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-21, June.
    17. Manuel Antonio Espinoza & Andrea Manca & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2018. "Social value and individual choice: The value of a choice‐based decision‐making process in a collectively funded health system," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 28-40, February.
    18. Hyojung Tak & Gregory Ruhnke & Ya-Chen Shih, 2015. "The Association between Patient-Centered Attributes of Care and Patient Satisfaction," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(2), pages 187-197, April.
    19. Miller, Nancy & Weinstein, Marcie, 2007. "Participation and knowledge related to a nursing home admission decision among a working age population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 303-313, January.
    20. France Légaré & Annette M. O'Connor & Ian D. Graham & Georges A. Wells & Stéphane Tremblay, 2006. "Impact of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework on the Agreement and the Difference between Patients' and Physicians' Decisional Conflict," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 373-390, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:drugsa:v:40:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s40264-016-0466-1. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40264 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.