Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Medication Risk Communication in Rheumatology: Where Are We and Where Do We Go from Here?

  • RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (L MORELAND, SECTION EDITOR)
  • Published:
Current Rheumatology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reviews findings from recent research examining issues related to the risk communication process within the context of rheumatologic conditions. Five specific questions are addressed. First, to what extent do patients with rheumatic disorders exhibit adequate knowledge relevant to disease and medication risks and risk management? Second, what sources do patients use when attempting to find information about disease and medication risks and risk management? Third, what types of information about disease and medication risks and risk management do rheumatologists provide during routine office visits. Fourth, what governmental regulations attempt to increase consumer access to information about medication risks and risk management? Finally, what other educational resources are available to facilitate patient-provider communication concerning disease and medication risks and risk management? The findings reported identify gaps in patient knowledge concerning medication risks and risk management, highlight areas for improvement, and identify resources that may enhance medication risk communication.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Recently published papers of particular interest have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Bogardus Jr ST, Holmboe E, Jekel JF. Perils, pitfalls, and possibilities in talking about medical risk. JAMA. 1999;281(11):1037–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Skiveren J, Philipsen P, Therming G. Patients with psoriasis have insufficient knowledge of their risk of atherothrombotic disease and metabolic syndrome. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2015;40(6):600–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Barton JL, Schmajuk G, Trupin L, Graf J, Imboden J, Yelin EH, et al. Poor knowledge of methotrexate associated with older age and limited English-language proficiency in a diverse rheumatoid arthritis cohort. Arthritis Res Ther. 2013;15(5):R157.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Sowden E, Hassan W, Gooden A, Jepson B, Kausor T, Shafait I, et al. Limited end-user knowledge of methotrexate despite patient education: an assessment of rheumatologic preventive practice and effectiveness. J Clin Rheumatol. 2012;18(3):130–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fayet F, Savel C, Rodere M, Pereira B, Abdi D, Mathieu S, et al. The development of a questionnaire to evaluate rheumatoid arthritis patient’s knowledge about methotrexate. J Clin Nurs. 2016;25:682–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Carpenter DM, Elstad EA, Blalock SJ, DeVellis RF. Conflicting medication information: prevalence, sources, and relationship to medication adherence. J Health Commun. 2014;19(1):67–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hayden C, Neame R, Tarrant C. Patients’ adherence-related beliefs about methotrexate: a qualitative study of the role of written patient information. BMJ Open. 2015;5(5):e006918.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Blalock SJ, DeVellis BM, DeVellis RF, Chewning B, Jonas BL, Sleath BL. Medication risk communication during rheumatology office visits. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2015;67(2):161–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Blalock SJ, Slota C, Devellis BM, Devellis RF, Chewning B, Jonas BL, et al. Patient-rheumatologist communication concerning prescription medications: getting to the gist. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2014;66(4):542–50. This study found that patients often have difficulty distilling the gist (i.e., bottom-line meaning) communicated by rheumatologists during routine office visits. Being able to recall the gist communicated may be more important than accurate recall of specific details.

  10. Blalock SJ, DeVellis RF, Chewning B, Sleath BL, Reyna VF. Gist and verbatim communication concerning medication risks/benefits. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(6):988–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Knapp P, Raynor DK, Berry DC. Comparison of two methods of presenting risk information to patients about the side effects of medicines. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13(3):176–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Berry DC, Knapp P, Raynor DK. Provision of information about drug side-effects to patients. Lancet. 2002;359(9309):853–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Blalock SJ, Sage A, Bitonti M, Patel P, Dickinson R, Knapp P. Communicating information concerning potential medication harms and benefits: what gist do numbers convey? Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99:1964–70. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2016.07.022. This study demonstrated that presenting medication side effect and benefit information in non-numeric format can bias decision-making in opposite directions. Study findings suggest that providing numerical benefit information may decrease adherence, creating ethical dilemmas for providers.

  14. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Medication Guides 2016. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm085729.htm. Accessed 11 Oct 2016.

  15. Peters E, Hart PS, Tusler M, Fraenkel L. Numbers matter to informed patient choices: a randomized design across age and numeracy levels. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(4):430–42. This study found that providing numeric information concerning the probability of medication side effects can increase risk comprehension.

  16. Wolf MS, King J, Wilson EA, Curtis LM, Bailey SC, Duhig J, et al. Usability of FDA-approved medication guides. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(12):1714–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Wolf MS, Bailey SC, Serper M, Smith M, Davis TC, Russell AL, et al. Comparative effectiveness of patient-centered strategies to improve FDA medication guides. Med Care. 2014;52(9):781–9. This study demonstrated that redesign of Medication Guides using evidence-based practices can improve patient comprehension.

  18. Wolf MS, Davis TC, Shrank WH, Neuberger M, Parker RM. A critical review of FDA-approved medication guides. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;62(3):316–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Boudewyns V, O’Donoghue AC, Kelly B, West SL, Oguntimein O, Bann CM, et al. Influence of patient medication information format on comprehension and application of medication information: a randomized, controlled experiment. Patient Educ Couns. 2015. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2015.07.003.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Knox C, Hampp C, Willy M, Winterstein AG, Dal Pan G. Patient understanding of drug risks: an evaluation of medication guide assessments. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2015;24(5):518–25. This study found that most Medication Guides fail to meet the 80% knowledge threshold in required patient assessment surveys reported to the FDA. Study findings highlight the need for improvement.

  21. Herber OR, Gies V, Schwappach D, Thurmann 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Libby AM, Orton HD, Valuck RJ. Persisting decline in depression treatment after FDA warnings. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2009;66(6):633–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pander Maat H, Lentz L, Raynor DK. How to test mandatory text templates: the European patient information leaflet. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0139250.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Raynor DK. User testing in developing patient medication information in Europe. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2013;9(5):640–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Raynor DK, Bryant D. European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) summaries for the public: are they fit for purpose? A user-testing study. BMJ Open. 2013;3(9):e003185.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Raynor DK, Knapp P, Silcock J, Parkinson B, Feeney K. “User-testing” as a method for testing the fitness-for-purpose of written medicine information. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;83(3):404–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. European Commission. Council directive on the labelling of medicinal products for human use and on package leaflets. In: Official Journal of the European Communities. Brussels; 1992. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31992L0027&qid=1421942543047&from=EN. Accessed 10 Oct 2016.

  28. European Commission. Guideline on the readability of the labelling and package leaflet of medicinal products for human use. http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol-2/c/2009_01_12_readability_guideline_final_en.pdf. Accessed 8 Oct 2016.

  29. Dickinson R, Raynor DK, Knapp P, MacDonald J. How much information about the benefits of medicines is included in patient leaflets in the European Union?—A survey. Int J Pharm Pract. 2016. doi:10.1111/ijpp.12285.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Berry DC, Raynor DK, Knapp P, Bersellini E. Patients’ understanding of risk associated with medication use: impact of European Commission guidelines and other risk scales. Drug Saf. 2003;26(1):1–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Knapp P, Raynor DK, Woolf E, Gardner PH, Carrigan N, McMillan B. Communicating the risk of side effects to patients: an evaluation of UK regulatory recommendations. Drug Saf. 2009;32(10):837–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hameen-Anttila K. Strategic development of medicines information: expanding key global initiatives. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2016;12(3):535–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Barton JL, Trupin L, Schillinger D, Evans-Young G, Imboden J, Montori VM, et al. Use of low-literacy decision aid to enhance knowledge and reduce decisional conflict among a diverse population of adults with rheumatoid arthritis: results of a pilot study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2016;68(7):889–98. This paper reports the results of a study evaluating a promising new decision aid targeted toward RA patients with low-literacy skills. The aid is available in three languages: English, Spanish, and Cantonese.

  34. Barton JL, Koenig CJ, Evans-Young G, Trupin L, Anderson J, Ragouzeos D, et al. The design of a low literacy decision aid about rheumatoid arthritis medications developed in three languages for use during the clinical encounter. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014;14:104.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Li LC, Adam PM, Townsend AF, Lacaille D, Yousefi C, Stacey D, et al. Usability testing of ANSWER: a web-based methotrexate decision aid for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:131.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Li LC, Adam PM, Backman CL, Lineker S, Jones CA, Lacaille D, et al. Proof-of-concept study of a Web-based methotrexate decision aid for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2014;66(10):1472–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Fraenkel L, Peters E, Charpentier P, Olsen B, Errante L, Schoen RT, et al. Decision tool to improve the quality of care in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012;64(7):977–85.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Fraenkel L, Matzko CK, Webb DE, Oppermann B, Charpentier P, Peters E, et al. Use of decision support for improved knowledge, values clarification, and informed choice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2015;67(11):1496–502. This study evaluated an online decision aid targeted toward RA patients who are candidates for biologic agents. The decision aid was shown to increase knowledge and values clarity, although not all improvements were sustained at an 8-week follow-up.

  39. Meade T, Dowswell E, Manolios N, Sharpe L. The motherhood choices decision aid for women with rheumatoid arthritis increases knowledge and reduces decisional conflict: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:260.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Ciciriello S, Buchbinder R, Osborne RH, Wicks IP. Improving treatment with methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis—development of a multimedia patient education program and the MiRAK, a new instrument to evaluate methotrexate-related knowledge. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2014;43(4):437–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Allen KD, Sanders LL, Olsen MK, Bowlby L, Katz JN, Mather 3rd RC, et al. Internet versus DVD decision aids for hip and knee osteoarthritis. Musculoskeletal Care. 2016;14(2):87–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Toupin April K, Rader T, Hawker GA, Stacey D, O’Connor AM, Welch V, et al. Development and alpha-testing of a stepped decision aid for patients considering nonsurgical options for knee and hip osteoarthritis management. J Rheumatol. 2016;43(10):1891–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Washington K, Shacklady C. Patients’ experience of shared decision making using an online patient decision aid for osteoarthritis of the knee—a service evaluation. Musculoskeletal Care. 2015;13(2):116–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Rochon D, Eberth JM, Fraenkel L, Volk RJ, Whitney SN. Elderly patients’ experiences using adaptive conjoint analysis software as a decision aid for osteoarthritis of the knee. Health Expect. 2014;17(6):840–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. The Drug Facts Box: improving the communication of prescription drug information. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110 Suppl 3:14069–74. This paper reports the results of two studies evaluating Drug Facts Boxes, which are one-page summaries of the benefit and harm data reported in phase 3 trials submitted to the FDA during the drug approval process. Drug Facts Boxes are designed to make this information more accessible and comprehensible to consumers.

  46. Martin RW, Brower ME, Geralds A, Gallagher PJ, Tellinghuisen DJ. An experimental evaluation of patient decision aid design to communicate the effects of medications on the rate of progression of structural joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86(3):329–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. The drug facts box: providing consumers with simple tabular data on drug benefit and harm. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):655–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms: two randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(8):516–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Plain language 2016. http://www.cdc.gov/healthliteracy/developmaterials/PlainLanguage.html. Accessed 11 Oct 2016.

  50. Quaglio G, Sorensen K, Rubig P, Bertinato L, Brand H, Karapiperis T, Dinca I, Peetso T, Kadenbach K, Dario C: Accelerating the health literacy agenda in Europe. Health Promot Int. 2016. doi:10.1093/heapro/daw028.

  51. Manafo E, Wong S. Health literacy programs for older adults: a systematic literature review. Health Educ Res. 2012;27(6):947–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7573, USA

    Susan J. Blalock

Authors
  1. Susan J. Blalock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan J. Blalock.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article contains studies with human subjects that were performed by the author. All of these studies were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Additional information

This article is a part of the Topical Collection on Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blalock, S.J. Medication Risk Communication in Rheumatology: Where Are We and Where Do We Go from Here?. Curr Rheumatol Rep 19, 7 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-017-0631-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-017-0631-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation