Potential negative impact of informing patients about medication side effects: a systematic review
- 321 Downloads
Background Pharmacovigilance, as it is carried out primarily by healthcare professionals is more focused on being very objective in nature. Acknowledging the importance of the subjective experience of patients in pharmacovigilance was underpinned by its unique ability to bring about a more holistic understanding through the deep information unraveled by the patients. Medication safety-related information has to be shared with patients to allow them to be actively involved in their therapy and pharmacovigilance. Despite the advantages of sharing information, it stands to reasons whether sharing information related to possible side effects would negatively affect patients and impinge upon their treatment plan and process. Aim of the Review The purpose of this systematic review was to critically assess the potential negative impact of informing patients about medication side effects by written and/or oral information on medication compliance, occurrence/development of suspected side effects and clinical outcomes. Method A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, and Cochrane library to identify potential records between the year 1975 and 2017; then titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened using the inclusion criteria to filter out irrelevant studies. The data extraction, and the results were narratively synthesized and presented in tables. Results A total of 2012 articles were screened for inclusion, 32 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and finally resulting in the inclusion of 17 randomized control studies which met the set criteria. Findings unraveled that the educational intervention did not result in increased occurrence/reporting of side effects in most of the evaluated studies; except 4 studies, and no significant impact on compliance to medications and negative clinical outcome was observed. Apprehension of negative events to medications were observed in two of the four studies which evaluated these parameters. Conclusion The present review did not find enough evidence to support the over concerns on the potential negative impact of sharing of information on the adverse effects to patients, though the influence could manifest as nocebo-effect. The various components and methods employed for this information sharing process can influence the potential impact of this activity. These concerns about the undesirable effects should not deter the active involvement of patients in pharmacovigilance activities. There is a definite need to have more studies in this area, where much of concern still does exist among the various stakeholders of drug safety information.
KeywordsAdverse drug reactions Drug safety information Nocebo effect Patient education Pharmacovigilance Side effects
Authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Hisn A’Shumookh library, Sultanate of Oman and Dr. James Stevenson, College of Pharmacy, University of Michigan in facilitating the access of many full text articles included in the review.
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Conflicts of interest
Jimmy Jose and Lamia AlHajri declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.World Health Organization. The importance of pharmacovigilance. Safety monitoring of medicinal products. United Kingdom. 2002. http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/pdf/s4893e/s4893e.pdf. Cited 30 Jan 2018.
- 3.World Health Organization. Essential medicines and health products. http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/safety_efficacy/pharmvigi/en/. Cited 30 Jan 2018.
- 4.Sottosanti L. Current roles of the patients in pharmacovigilance activities: regulatory perspective. http://congresso.sifweb.org/programma/abs/102.pdf. Cited 30 Jan 2018.
- 5.van Hunsel F. The contribution of direct patient reporting to pharmacovigilance. Dissertation on the Internet. Netherlands: University of Groningen. 2011. https://www.lareb.nl/media/3026/2011_4_thesis_patient_reporting.pdf. Cited 30 Jan 2018.
- 9.Medscape CME/CE. Communicating drug risk to patients. 2008. https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/581013_2. Cited 19 Jan 2018.
- 11.Couvertier-Lebron CE, Dove R, Acevedo SF. What you do not know could hurt you: what women wish their doctors had told them about chemotherapy side effects on memory and response to alcohol. Breast Cancer (Auckl). 2016;10:229–38.Google Scholar
- 46.Riese C, Weiß B, Borges U Jr, Beylich A, Dengler R, Hermes-Moll K, et al. Effectiveness of a standardized patient education program on therapy-related side effects and unplanned therapy interruptions in oral cancer therapy: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Support Care Cancer. 2017;25(11):3475–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 50.Delany LJ. Patient-centered care as an approach to improving health care in Australia. Aust J Nurs Pract Scholarsh Res. 2018;25(1):119–23.Google Scholar
- 53.National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care (UK). Medicines adherence: involving patients in decisions about prescribed medicines and supporting adherence. London: Royal College of General Practitioners (UK). Jan 2009. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK55440/. Cited 30 Jan 2018.
- 55.Russel IF. How to inform patients about side effects of regional anesthesia and analgesia. http://www.finnanest.fi/files/l_russell_2.pdf. Cited 13 Feb 2018.
- 59.Faasse K, Petrie KJ. The nocebo effect: patient expectations and medication side effects. Postgrad Med J. 1055;2013(89):540–6.Google Scholar
- 63.General Medical Council. Good practice in prescribing and managing medicines and devices. London. 2013. https://www.gmc-uk.org/Prescribing_guidance.pdf_59055247.pdf. Cited 18 Feb 2018.
- 66.Slovic P, Kraus NN, Lappe H, Letzel H, Malmfors T. Risk perception of prescription drugs: report on a survey in Sweden. In: Horisberger B, Dinkel R, editors. The perception and management of drug safety risks. Health systems research. Berlin: Springer; 1989.Google Scholar
- 68.Eriksson R, Aagaard L, Jensen LJ, Borisova L, Hørlück D, Brunak S, et al. Discrepancies in listed adverse drug reactions in pharmaceutical product information supplied by the regulatory authorities in Denmark and the USA. Pharmacol Res Perspect. 2014;2(3):e00038. https://doi.org/10.1002/prp2.38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 72.Herber OR, Gies V, Schwappach D, Thürmann P, Wilm S. Patient information leaflets: informing or frightening? A focus group study exploring patients’ emotional reactions and subsequent behavior towards package leaflets of commonly prescribed medications in family practices. BMC Fam Pract. 2014;15:163.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 74.Rojas-Mirquez JC, Rodriguez-Zuñiga MJ, Bonilla-Escobar FJ, Garcia-Perdomo HA, Petkov M, Becerra L, et al. Nocebo effect in randomized clinical trials of antidepressants in children and adolescents: systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Behav Neurosci. 2014;8:375.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 75.Stuart K. 25 reasons people aren’t enrolling in your clinical trial. Oct 2015. http://www.imperialcrs.com/blog/2015/10/25-reasons-people-arent-enrolling-in-your-clinical-trial/. Cited 17 Feb 2018.
- 76.Comprehensive Cancer Centres of Nevada. Common misconceptions about clinical research. https://www.cccnevada.com/clinical-research-misconceptions/. Cited 17 Feb 2018.