Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public Knowledge and Desire for Knowledge about Drug Safety Issues: A Survey of the General Public in New Zealand

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Pharmaceutical Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Effective communication of drug safety information is essential for individuals to make informed decisions about their use of therapeutic medicines.

Objectives

The aims of this study were to explore (1) understanding and awareness of drug safety issues, and (2) preferences regarding sources and channels of communication about drug safety among the New Zealand public.

Methods

Structured telephone interviews were completed by 257 participants randomly selected from New Zealand electoral rolls.

Results

A total of 67 % of participants reported using at least one prescription medicine in the month prior to interview, and 23 % reported having experienced an adverse drug reaction (ADR) in the year prior to interview. Less than half (45 %) had been aware of the ADR risk before it occurred, and only 1 % of all participants could name the Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring as the agency to which suspected ADRs are reported in New Zealand. Similarly, only 51, 40 and 56 % of users of aspirin/ibuprofen, combined oral contraceptive pill or hormone therapy, respectively, could recall a known ADR of their medicine. Just over half of participants believed new medicines would only be approved for use if they were completely safe, and just 1 % could name the authority responsible for therapeutic product regulation in New Zealand. A total of 40 % of participants wanted more information when prescribed new medicines, with the most commonly suggested means of obtaining drug safety information in the future being via healthcare professionals and a trusted internet resource.

Conclusions

These findings indicate a low level of drug safety awareness among the general population, together with a desire for further knowledge.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hugman B. Protecting the People? Risk communication and the chequered history and performance of bureaucracy. Drug Saf. 2012;35(11):1005–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bahri P. Public Pharmacovigilance communication: a process calling for evidence-based, objective-driven strategies. Drug Saf. 2010;33(12):1065–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Czarnecki A. Intelligent risk communication. Can it be improved? Drug Saf. 2008;31(1):1–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hugman B, Edwards R. The challenge of effectively communicating patient safety information. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2006;5(4):495–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. No authors listed. Erice Statement 2009: communication, medicines and patient safety. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;69(2):207–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Uppsala Monitoring Centre. Dialogue in pharmacovigilance. Uppsala: Uppsala Monitoring Centre; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  7. US Food and Drug Administration. Communicating risks and benefits: An evidence-based user’s guide. Silver Spring, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration; 2011. http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/ucm268078.htm. Accessed 18 May 2016.

  8. European Medicines Agency. Information on benefit-risk of medicines: patients’, consumers’ and healthcare professionals’ expectations. London: European Medicines Agency; 2009. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2009/12/WC500018433.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2016.

  9. Bahri P, Dodoo A, Edwards B, Edwards R, Fermont I, Hagemann U, Hartigan-Go K, Hugman B, Mol P. The IsoP CommSIG for improving medicinal product risk communication: a new special interest group of the International Society of Pharmacovigilancce. Drug Saf. 2015;38:621–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bongard V, Menard-Tache S, Bagheri H, Kabiri K, Lapeyre-Mestre M, Montastruc J. Perception of the risk of adverse drug reactions: differences between health professionals and non health professionals. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2002;54:433–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Nair K, Dolovich L, Cassels A, McCormack J, Levine M, Gray J, Mann K, Burns S. What patients want to know about their medications: focus group study of patient and clinician perspectives. Can Fam Physician. 2002;48:104–10.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Dunning T, Manias E. Medication knowledge and self-management by people with type 2 diabetes. Aust J Adv Nurs. 2005;23:7–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cullen G, Kelly E, Murray F. Patients’ knowledge of adverse reactions to current medications. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2006;62(2):232–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Marks J, Schectman J, Groninger H, Plews-Ogan M. The association of health literacy and socio-demographic factors with medication knowledge. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78:372–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Brouneus F, Macleod G, Maclennan K, Parkin L, Paul C. Drug safety awareness in New Zealand: public knowledge and preferred sources for information. J Prim Health Care. 2012;4(4):288–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Robertson J, Newby D. Low awareness of adverse drug reaction reporting systems: a consumer survey. Med J Aust. 2013;199:684–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fortnum H, Lee A, Rupnik M, Avery A. Survey to assess public awareness of patient reporting of adverse drug reactions in Great Britain. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2012;37:161–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sellnow TL, Ulmer RR, Seeger MW, Littlefield RS. Effective risk communication A message-centered approach. New York: Springer; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Seeger MW. Best Practices in crisis communication: an expert panel process. J Appl Commun Res. 2006;34(3):232–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Reynolds B, Galdo JH, Sokler L. Crisis and emergency risk communication. Atlanta, GA: Centres for Disease Control and Prevention; 2002. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/6574. Accessed 3 Mar 2016.

  21. New Zealand Ministry of Health. Korero Marama: Health literacy and Maori results from the 2006 adult literacy and life skills survey. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Brouneus F, Maclennan K, Parkin L, Paul C. Communicating drug safety information to health care professionals and the public—results from a survey by the University of Otago Pharmacovigilance Research Team. Dunedin: University of Otago; 2011. https://nzphvc.otago.ac.nz/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Regulator-Survey_booklet-for-participants.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2016.

  23. Ziegler DK, Mosier MC, Buenaver M, Okuyemi K. How much information about adverse effects of medication do patients want from physicians? Arch Int Med. 2001;161:706–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. McCormack L, Lefebvre RC, Bann C, Taylor O, Rausch P. Consumer understanding, preferences, and responses to different versions of drug safety messages in the United States: a randomized controlled trial. Drug Saf. 2016;39:171–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. New Zealand Ministry of Health. Framework for health literacy. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 2015. https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/framework-health-literacy. Accessed 2 February 2016.

  26. Cutilli CC. Seeking health information: what sources do your patients use? Orthop Nurs. 2010;29:214–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Eagle L, Reid J, Hawkins J, Styles E. Breaking through the invisible barrier of low functional health literacy: implications for health communication. Stud Commun Sci. 2005;5:29–56.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ministry of Health; Medsafe, New Zealand Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority. Guideline on the regulation of therapeutic products in New Zealand, Part 5, Edition 1.5. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 2015. http://medsafe.govt.nz/regulatory/Guideline/GRTPNZ/Part5.pdf. Accessed 5 Feb 2016.

  29. New Zealand Ministry of Health. Rauemi Atawhai: A guide to developing health education resources in New Zealand. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Tulloch JC, Zinn JO. Risk, health and the media. Health Risk Soc. 2011;13(1):1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Morton SMB, Bandara DK, Robinson EM, Atatoa Carr PE. In the 21st Century, what is an acceptable response rate? Aust N Z J Public Health. 2012;36(2):106–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Salmond C, Crampton P, Atkinson J. NZDep2006 index of deprivation. Dunedin: University of Otago; 2007. http://www.otago.ac.nz/wellington/otago020348.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2016.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge Professor Charlotte Paul for her input into the design and analysis of this study and for commenting on an earlier version of the manuscript. The authors also thank Dr. Brett Maclennan for his assistance with data analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand

    Karyn Maclennan, Fredrik Brounéus & Lianne Parkin

Authors
  1. Karyn Maclennan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fredrik Brounéus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lianne Parkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lianne Parkin.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This work was supported by a Joint Initiative of the Health Research Council of New Zealand (10/031) and the New Zealand Ministry of Health.

Conflict of interest

Karyn Maclennan, Fredrik Brounéus and Lianne Parkin have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was granted by the University of Otago Ethics Committee (D12/204), and informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 3729 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maclennan, K., Brounéus, F. & Parkin, L. Public Knowledge and Desire for Knowledge about Drug Safety Issues: A Survey of the General Public in New Zealand. Pharm Med 30, 339–348 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-016-0164-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-016-0164-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation