Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 The International Society of Pharmacovigilance Special Interest Group on Medicinal Product Risk Communication (ISoP CommSIG)
Pharmacovigilance has developed, and continues to develop, a wealth of surveillance methods, pharmacological knowledge, and measures for preventing patient harm. However, ensuring the safe use of medicines in daily healthcare remains a challenge and requires strong collaboration across medicines regulatory bodies, pharmaceutical companies, healthcare professionals, health policy makers, and patients. Many patients today expect a dialogue with their healthcare professionals and participation in decisions regarding their treatment. Communication may at times be challenging for pharmacovigilance specialists who are first of all dedicated to the collection and assessment of data on adverse events. Recognising the importance of communication, the International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP) launched a Special Interest Group on Medicinal Product Risk Communication (CommSIG) in 2014 during the 14th Annual Meeting of ISoP in Tianjin, China, with a mandate to:
-
Establish medicinal product risk communication as a discipline within pharmacovigilance, including integration of communication in all pharmacovigilance processes;
-
Provide for multidisciplinary and global exchange, learning and development of communication practice;
-
Promote research for planning and evaluating communication interventions [1].
The initiative to establish the CommSIG was built on the long-standing interests of ISoP members. Communication of risks and its relevance for pharmacovigilance have been discussed since the start of ISoP in 1993 and has always been part of ISoP’s vision. ISoP was therefore among those at the forefront of developing the fundamental Erice statement on medicines communication and patient safety in 1997 and the follow-up statement in 2009 [2, 3]. ISoP dedicated a range of activities to communication about the risks and safe use of medicines in the decade before creating the CommSIG [4], including a pre-conference training course in Tianjin in 2014 [5].
Establishing the CommSIG also built on a forward-looking attitude to changes in medicine, communication technology, patient expectations, and societies overall. It was also recognised that the multidisciplinary approach to communication would support reaching out to patient groups, healthcare, medicine information and media professionals, and experts from the communication, social, healthcare and data sciences. The nine founding members of the CommSIG published its background and aspirations in ISoP’s official journal, Drug Safety [4].
The initial challenges of having wide membership for global learning and creating opportunities for members to actively contribute have been addressed. Since its launch in 2014, the CommSIG has been steadily growing and currently has over 50 members with a wide geographic spread over Europe, Asia, the Americas, Africa and Oceania. During ISoP’s annual meetings, the CommSIG members meet to reflect on the achievements and decide on next activities. These annual CommSIG members’ meetings are open to all attendees of the ISoP annual meetings, to provide for an influx of new ideas in roundtable discussions and to welcome new CommSIG members. ISoP members can join the SIG at any time, and between meetings, its members stay in contact, exchange information and contribute to ISoP activities, mainly via group emails and, since 2021, through regular online meetings. Several work streams have been set up to ensure achievement of the annual goals and to offer opportunities to CommSIG members to contribute to or lead activities. The deliverables cover organising sessions at ISoP meetings and training courses, and disseminating key messages from the CommSIG to wider forums for creating synergies, as highlighted later in this article.
There are also cross-memberships and collaborations with the ISoP Special Interest Groups on Women’s Medicines [6], Herbal and Traditional Medicines [7], Medication Errors [8], Vaccines [9], Risk Minimisation Methods for Asian Countries [10], and Patient Engagement [11], and with various regional ISoP Chapters.
A first update on the CommSIG activities was published in 2018 [12]. This article further updates what the CommSIG has achieved to date, gives a complete overview of the key messages arising from the sessions at ISoP meetings as a basis for continuing progress, and presents the CommSIG’s directions for the 2020s in addressing current challenges.
2 Sharing Experience and Expertise Around the Globe
The ISoP annual meetings are the highlight of the Society’s life every year, allowing its worldwide members and local pharmacovigilance specialists to come together. In 2015 and 2018, the CommSIG organised sessions involving specialists from outside pharmacovigilance, and in 2016 and 2019, sessions were organised based on accepted conference abstracts, particularly from Asia and the Americas, as the respective host regions. The 2017 meeting included a session on ‘The Language of Pharmacovigilance’ as the Bengt-Erik Wiholm Memorial Lecture. The sessions were interactive, with lively, moderated panel and audience discussions. In 2018, eight flash talks followed by ample discussion time offered the audience a new session format at an ISoP annual meeting for presenting a broader range of perspectives from pharmacovigilance, patient, and communication experts in different settings and regions. The key messages from these sessions are summarised in Appendix 1. In addition, knowledge was shared at the annual meetings during the poster sessions, and Appendix 2 presents a selection of references to posters that are relevant to medicinal product risk communication (while it is interesting to note that considerably more posters regarding a wide range of pharmacovigilance processes and product safety concerns have referred to the opportunities of communication in their conclusions). Furthermore, the CommSIG supported pre-conference training courses in 2015 and 2016 on risk management and communication.
The CommSIG contributed to other meetings under the ISoP umbrella: in 2015, a presentation was invited by the African Society of Pharmacovigilance (ASoP) for the 2nd ASoP Conference held in Accra (‘Transparency, Communication and Participation in Pharmacovigilance’ by Priya Bahri) [13]. CommSIG members also contributed to ISoP mid-year training courses in South America, one held jointly with the Uppsala Monitoring Centre (UMC) in São Paulo in 2015 (‘Interaction with Media and Role Play’ by Paula Alvarado, Alex Dodoo and Bruce Hugman) and one in Lima in 2016 (‘Risk Communication’ by Ulrich Hagemann and Paula Alvarado). In Berlin in 2016, a training course on ‘Risk Assessment of Drug Use During Pregnancy and Lactation’, organised by the European Network of Teratology Information Services (ENTIS), the Norwegian PhD School in Pharmacy NFIF and ISoP, included a session on communication [14]. Furthermore, the CommSIG supported work in Israel with advice on a campaign for the safe use of anticoagulants [15] and the ‘International Multidisciplinary and Solution Oriented Symposium: Minimize Risks – Improve Communication’ in 2019 [16].
In 2020, the flow of progress was abruptly halted by the global severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Recognising the crucial importance of pharmacovigilance communication during this crisis, the CommSIG has since then continued working in adapted ways through digital platforms.
In March 2020, ISoP started to develop two infographics for patients, one on the safe use of medicines during the pandemic, and a later on the safety of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. The CommSIG contributed by developing the key messages and design of these first ISoP infographics, as well as the ISoP strapline ‘Committed to safer medicines use worldwide’ for supporting ISoP outreach to medicines stakeholders. The infographics are now available in several languages for display free of charge in healthcare settings [17] (see Fig. 1).
The CommSIG also provided advice to the then new ISoP Communications Team, which developed and installed an outreach strategy for ISoP, using, in particular, social media channels such as Facebook/Meta, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube, in addition to an existing LinkedIn page. The ISoP Communication Team includes a designer and community manager to support the activities with audience-tailored graphical elements and infographics [18].
On World Patient Safety Day on 17 September 2020, CommSIG member (and current ISoP President) Angela Caro-Rojas disseminated a talk ‘¿Y si hablamos? Comunicación para una medicación más Segura’ [And if we talk? Communication for Safer Medication].
Later in 2020, other CommSIG members presented at a webinar series titled ‘Tell Us a Safety Story’ organised in Israel, with talks on ‘Impact of the COVID-19 Infodemic on Drug-Utilization Behaviors’ [19, 20] and ‘The Public Hearing for Valproate at the European Medicines Agency (EMA): Stakeholder Input and Implications for Future Engagement’ [21, 22]. Priya Bahri, in her CommSIG coordinator role, also represented the SIG as a panellist for the event on 10 February 2021 organised by the ISoP Latin American Chapter as part of their webinar series ‘Vigilance of COVID-19 Vaccines’ [23]. Other CommSIG members joined the discussions at these online events.
In November 2021, ISoP held its annual meeting in Muscat, Oman, in hybrid format, and the CommSIG sponsored a session on visual communication, which covered infographics, safe-use pictograms, and graphics for visualisation of risk estimates, and involved a digital communication and fact-checking specialist from Asia. Another relevant talk was part of the session on COVID-19 vaccine safety surveillance and provided a community perspective on safety information from public institutions and other stakeholders (see Appendix 1). The pre-conference training course ‘Managing Safety Signals in Daily Practice’ included a talk on ‘Communication of Safety Signals: What, When and Where’, with a subsequent workshop [24].
3 Substantiating the Discipline of Medicinal Product Risk Communication
3.1 The Contribution from the CommSIG
Medicinal product risk communication has been defined as the structures, processes, and outcomes of information exchanges about risks and any concerns people may have with medicines, the measures to support safe use and minimise risks, and about risk governance in private, community, and society spheres [25]. Since the mid-1990s, an increasing range of parallel initiatives has established medicinal product risk communication as a self-standing discipline of pharmacovigilance, and the CommSIG has supported this. Thanks to ISoP’s vision and the CommSIG’s activities, medicinal product risk communication has become a permanent programme item in ISoP’s annual meetings, reflecting the fact that communication is now a recognised, visible, and advancing discipline within pharmacovigilance. Some characteristics that are typical for a scientific discipline have been substantiated through the CommSIG-sponsored sessions at ISoP’s annual meetings (see Appendix 1), as follows:
-
A multidisciplinary approach: A notable exploit of the CommSIG is involvement of specialists from outside pharmacovigilance (2015, 2018 and 2021), covering communication psychology [26], healthcare services [27], patient advocacy [28], environmental crisis management with complex stakeholder interactions [29], and digital media [30]. This involvement took forward suggestions from experts in pharmacovigilance and other disciplines, collated in 2012 in a Drug Safety themed edition to lay the groundwork for multidisciplinary learning and practices for medicinal product risk communication [31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. Broad multidisciplinary collaborations are necessary for advancing medicinal product risk communication [40, 41] with in-depth understanding of the dissemination, perception, and adoption of information, and of the barriers and enablers of applying information for behavioural choices, both at individual and population levels in the different private, community, and society socioeconomic spheres [25].
-
Global relevance: The CommSIG has provided a platform for exchange, visibility, and promotion of medicinal product risk communication in various pharmacovigilance settings worldwide. For local affiliates of pharmaceutical companies, the crucial importance of having risk surveillance and communication processes in place for effective interactions between local regulatory bodies and global company headquarters was highlighted (2019) [42]. A specific model for designing risk minimisation and pharmacovigilance activities in Asia was presented [43]. It was inspiring to learn how multilingual and multicultural challenges with medicines risk communication have been successfully overcome in Colombia (2018) [44], India (2016) [45], Mexico (2019) [46], and Thailand (2016) [47]. Other examples of enhanced communication practices and research were presented from Croatia (2015) [48], Israel (2018) [15], Italy (2016) [49], and Tunisia (2018) [50]. The DataLEADS initiative, originating from India and now active across Asia, was an example of how to use digital media for informing people and supporting them against misinformation (2021) [30]. Given that socioeconomic and health inequities of women are still prevalent in many countries, a special plea was made for listening and providing information to women regarding their health and suitable medicines (2018) [51].
-
Innovative solutions: A scientific discipline must also be able to identify relevant problems and solutions. At the CommSIG, a start has been made in this respect by discussing fundamental concepts, such as verbal and numerical literacy (2015) [26, 27], risk proportionality of risk minimisation interventions (2016) [43], and implementation of interventions in the context of human factors (2018) [44, 53]. The study of human factors is a multidisciplinary science concerned with interactions of humans with system elements, applying anatomical, physiological, and psychological knowledge to design systems that complement human abilities and enhance safety [54,55,56]. Other innovative solutions were proposed from successful creative collaborations, such as role-play-based development of healthcare professionals’ communication skills (2018) [44] and theatre performances for outreach to young people (2015) [48] or to indigenous communities (2019) [46]. The use of social media may also benefit pharmacovigilance, for example through well-designed tools for reporting suspected adverse reactions (2019) [57] and disseminating information in tailored ways to various audiences [30].
-
Healthcare implementation: Solutions discussed increasingly focused on the role of communication in implementing risk minimisation measures in healthcare, underpinned by multidisciplinary concepts (2015 and 2018) [58,59,60]. Practical examples include a multilingual and visual guide for the safe use of medicines to support healthcare professionals in Thailand in their dialogues with patients (2016) [47], pharmacist-led interventions for the safe use of medicines in India (2016) [45], a campaign in Israeli community pharmacies to reduce risks with anticoagulants (2018) [15], and engagement of the Tunisian pharmacovigilance centre with healthcare professionals and patients for reporting suspected adverse reactions and risk minimisation advice (2018) [50]. A European study explored communication preferences of healthcare professionals (2015) [61]; a study in the UK investigated how product information could best advise healthcare professionals in patient monitoring for avoiding haematological adverse reactions (2019) [62]; and a project in Colombia aimed at enhancing the risk communication skills of healthcare professionals (2018) [44].
-
Research promotion: In relation to research for planning and evaluating communication interventions, the sessions promoted knowledge-sharing about local projects in various world regions. In 2016, a five-step strategic health communication approach with defined communication objectives [40, 52] was illustrated by the presented projects [60]. The model for developing risk minimisation measures [43] involved problem and situation analysis (step 1 of the strategic approach). Implementation of a multilingual and visual guide for the safe use of medicines [47] required strategic design (step 2), community engagement (step 3), and dissemination to healthcare settings (step 4). Evaluating the impact of communication events (step 5) can be achieved by various methods, such as an analysis of patient health records databases [49] or analyses of prescribing behaviours combined with healthcare professional knowledge-attitude-practice surveys, patient adherence surveys, and data on medicines-related problem and patient outcomes [45]. Such evaluations can provide evidence for re-planning interventions, feeding into a new strategic communication cycle.
To contextualise the establishment of the medicinal product risk communication discipline more broadly, other parallel initiatives need to be noted. Some of these have yielded synergies with the CommSIG, either actively created by its members or fostered by the openness of the SIG to mutual learning. The following are of particular importance:
3.2 Regulatory Bodies
Regulatory initiatives have had a crucial role in the development of communication as an important pharmacovigilance process, enabling risk management and underpinning transparency. Several guidance documents initiated by regulatory bodies have been of fundamental value, e.g. guidance for patient information or package leaflets, in Australia in 1997 [63] and in the European Union (EU) in 1998 (revised in 2009 to support compulsory readability testing [64]); expert reports on the leaflet in the UK in 2005 [65] and on a strategic risk communications framework in Canada in 2006 [66]; guidance on direct healthcare professional communications (DHPCs), with templates for DHPCs and communication plans, in the EU in 2006 [67] and later in Canada also [68]; and a communication guide in the USA in 2011 [41], a still valid and excellent resource today. A comparative overview of safety advisory policies of regulatory bodies in Australia, Canada, the EU, and the USA was published in 2020 [69]. In Japan, advanced communication policies have been issued by their Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) [70,71,72], but publications in Japanese are unfortunately not easily accessible to an international audience to learn from. To generate evidence for progress, the European Commission launched major projects in the 2010s under their Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI), which included research into risk communication for medicinal products [73, 74] and communication recommendations particularly for vaccines [75,76,77]. Similarly, a Joint Action project of EU Member States included a work package on safety communication for improvements [78, 79]. In the USA, a report relevant to regulators was issued in 2017, advocating for involvement of patients with diverse literacy, health literacy, language and cultural backgrounds in the testing of medicines information [80], and a model for multimodal analysis evaluating safety communication was developed by the USA Food and Drug Administration [81,82,83,84,85]. In the UK, the House of Commons initiated an examination of how the healthcare system responds to adverse reactions reports, which in 2020 recommended to the regulatory system incorporating behavioural science and best risk communication practice for patient autonomy [86]. Policy advances in other jurisdictions might have happened but be less well-featured in the scientific literature. Most recently, strengthening communication for stakeholder engagement for risk minimisation, as well as methods evaluating measures for risk minimisation that always involve communication, has been a major goal for EU regulators when revising guidance in 2021. This now incorporates approaches from the implementation, cognitive, and behavioural sciences [87]. ISoP participated in the public consultation of this guidance by submitting comments.
3.3 Erice Statements
The local regulatory initiatives described above have also been informed by an important global initiative. ISoP, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the UMC were together involved in organising and contributing to meetings, resulting in the Erice statements. Some of the CommSIG’s founding members had already participated in defining principles in the 1997 Erice Declaration on Communicating Drug Safety Information [2]. This was the first significant statement about the central role that ethical and transparent communication must play in the effective pursuit of patient safety. Even after more than 20 years, this declaration is still influential and often referenced as a seminal document. It was developed by a multidisciplinary international group, many of whom continued participating in further work, including that carried out by ISoP and the 2009 Erice follow-up statement on patient safety within evolving healthcare, societal and digitalised environments [3]. In 2016, a new group of pharmacovigilance experts updated the original proposals, again under the lead of the late Giampaolo Velo, a previous ISoP President, for strengthening dialogue with patients for informed and shared therapeutic decision making as well as multi-stakeholder collaboration and integration of pharmacovigilance with healthcare [88]. The Erice Call for Change 2020 reinforced advocacy for an active role of patients in their own healthcare to improve quality and safety [89].
3.4 Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences
The Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) is an international, non-governmental organisation that convenes expert working groups to develop guidance for medical research ethics and pharmacovigilance [90]. As a member, ISoP participates in selecting guidance topics. The CIOMS Guide on Vaccine Safety Communication of 2017 includes practical recommendations for strategic planning as well as roles and skills for people responsible for communication within an organisation, based on a systems and capacity-building approach with examples from around the globe on successful outreach to various communities. While it was developed for vaccines, it is, in principle, applicable to all medicinal products [91, 92]. With its report from the Working Group XI on Patient Involvement in Development and Safe Use of Medicines, CIOMS continues to address processes that require patient-centred communication between stakeholders [93].
3.5 WHO Programme for International Drug Monitoring
ISoP traditionally maintains a strong link with WHO’s Programme for International Drug Monitoring (PIDM) [94], which started to include the topic of medicinal product risk communication in their annual meetings about two decades ago [95]. Major modules of WHO’s ‘Pharmacovigilance Resources’ for practicing pharmacovigilance deal with regular and crisis communication [96], and some of the CommSIG’s founding members had contributed to the underlying minimum standards and original toolkit. Among the WHO Collaborating Centres of the PIDM, the UMC has continually presented at ISoP’s annual meetings new creative communication tools for multiple dissemination channels, taking into account people’s evolving media preferences. These tools include the ‘Take & Tell’ campaign for direct patient reporting of suspected adverse reactions, with a website, printable materials, an application (app), a song, a YouTube video, and social media outreach. Furthermore, the entertaining ‘Annie & Mac’s Adventures’ comics have been developed by the UMC to educate young people about medicines. The UMC also offers the podcasts on ‘Drug Safety Matters’, bringing stories and in-depth expert interviews to cover new research and pressing safety issues [57, 97].
3.6 International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology
In 2012, the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE), which some refer to as a sister learned society of ISoP, established its SIG on Benefit-Risk Assessment, Communication and Evaluation (BRACE) with the mandate to promote the intersection of pharmacoepidemiology and BRACE activities through methods development and training offers [98]. The ISPE BRACE SIG has called for multidisciplinary collaborations of pharmacoepidemiologists, patients, and healthcare professionals, and use of real-world data for evidence generation and decision making on risk minimisation [99, 100]. Furthermore, some of its members developed the RIMES Statement to improve the reporting quality of studies evaluating risk minimisation and communication interventions [101]. ISPE’s annual conference in 2020 featured ‘The Science Communication of Pharmacoepidemiology’ in its final plenary session [102], followed in 2021 by the plenary session on ‘Communicating COVID-19 Pharmacoepidemiological Research to Patients; [103]. The ISPE BRACE SIG and the ISoP CommSIG have some common members, who keep both SIG communities mutually aware of their work of complementary scopes: the ISPE BRACE SIG mainly looks at appropriate data sources and research methods for BRACE activities, while the ISoP CommSIG is more concerned with integrating communication and outreach in pharmacovigilance practice.
3.7 Textbooks
ISoP has also brought together experts for the purpose of issuing major textbooks. In 2015, previous ISoP President and CommSIG member Mira Harrison-Woolrych published ‘Medicines for Women’ [104], which includes two chapters about communication from Bruce Hugman, one of the CommSIG’s founding members [105, 106]. In 2017, ‘Pharmacovigilance: Critique and Way Forward’, edited by previous ISoP President Ralph Edwards, also a CommSIG founding member, and previous ISoP Vice-President Marie Lindquist, emerged from a series of discussions at ISoP [107], and likewise contains a chapter from Bruce Hugman with suggestions for a culture change and innovative technologies for communication [108]. A book fully dedicated to ‘Communicating about Risks and Safe Use of Medicines: Real Life and Applied Research’ was published in 2020, edited by Priya Bahri [109]. Although this book was not an ISoP initiative, the invitation by the publishing house in 2014 followed the visibility and relevance of the topic at ISoP level. Chapter authors were invited from inside and outside the pharmacovigilance community to bring together methods from other sciences and establish a platform for multidisciplinary and participatory research. In particular, approaches from the cognitive, behavioural, social, rhetoric, media, design, implementation, and epidemiological sciences, as well as ethical and legal frameworks, have been consolidated to advance planning and evaluate medicinal product risk communication with relevance to all settings globally [110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121]. Overall, the book aims at preparing the ground for research that provides evidence on the causal relationships between structures, processes, and outcomes of communication and factors affecting communication about medicines in its multiple layers, with many senders and receivers in the various locations, media, and socioeconomic spheres over time. With this research framework, a self-standing inclusive discipline of humanities and epidemiology of medicinal product risk communication has been suggested [25].
4 Directions for the ISoP CommSIG in the 2020s
Directions for moving forward in the 2020s were initially explored at the annual ISoP CommSIG Members’ Meeting in Bogotá in November 2019, and further discussed at the CommSIG online meeting in June 2021, held to replace the annual in-person CommSIG meeting. In addition to the experiences shared by the CommSIG since 2015 as well as the parallel initiatives described above, the discussions considered the following:
4.1 Society
Societies in general and their expectations of healthcare are changing profoundly. The complete realisation of patient-centred, collaborative care is still in its infancy [122, 123]. Participatory governance in pharmacovigilance requires new practical frameworks and discourse skills [112, 115, 124, 125]. Trust in science, technologies, pharmaceutical companies, and governments is at stake, requiring public dialogue and engagement with society [126,127,128,129]. Research advances in the cognitive and behavioural sciences—partly also due to big data sources such as social media—help to understand the technical and social evolution of communication and expectations.
4.2 Media
The digitalisation and technical advances of the media support societal changes and lead to new media landscapes with fast and wide dissemination of information and expanded options for interactions between individuals and groups, and supplementary big data sources and methods for both safety and communication surveillance [110]. The usefulness of different communication tools for optimising use of medicines requires research [130], and various possible formats for conveying complex information [131,132,133,134] should be studied further, including visual formats for effective risk communication as discussed at the 2021 ISoP Annual Meeting [135].
4.3 Infodemics
With the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, health as well as societal problems have been exacerbated [136, 137] and an infodemic has emerged, a phenomenon seemingly first mentioned in 2003 in connection with the SARS-CoV-1 outbreak [138]. This describes a situation that accompanies a pandemic with an overabundance of information, both correct and incorrect information, disseminated with various intentions. Crises, controversies, and rapid, uncontrollable multimedia dissemination of information intensifying public speculation or anxiety are specific features of infodemics [139, 140]. The content of the current infodemic has included sensational and distorted information about COVID-19 vaccines [141] and medicines used off-label to prevent or treat COVID-19 [20], fuelled by social media [142, 143]. It seems likely that the SARS-CoV-2 infodemic will make communication about other medicinal products and maintaining public trust in science and governments generally more demanding and challenging. Rumour monitoring and counteracting false information and epistemic trespassing (judging matters outside one’s field of expertise) [144] are expected to become crucial activities in this respect.
4.4 Health Literacy
Because withstanding infodemics requires specific health literacy, an urgent call for epidemiological literacy of both the general public and policy makers has been made [145], which should build on verbal, numerical, and statistical literacy for clinical decision making by healthcare professionals and patients [146, 147]. Likewise, understanding established concepts of risk assessment, such as ‘uncertainty’ [148] or ‘absence of evidence of harm’ versus ‘evidence of absence of harm’ [149], should be part of epidemiological literacy.
4.5 Risk Perception
Perception of risk, i.e. each individual’s cognitive process of integrating new information into one’s own knowledge and beliefs [150], is influenced by health literacy, the new information to which one is exposed, and how, and by personal as well as social factors and expectations. Emotions and motivations are necessary for knowledge and beliefs to lead to behavioural choices and to result in actions [151]. There is evidence of a nocebo effect of information on risks with medicines, which increases the likelihood that an individual will experience an adverse reaction, and may lead patients to reject treatment [152, 153]. A considerable proportion of reported adverse events after COVID-19 vaccines has been estimated to be due to the nocebo effect [154], and concern about safety is a known driver of vaccine hesitancy [155]. Studying relationships between information and emotions is therefore essential formative research for communication interventions that avoid undue emotional impact and can support therapeutic decisions by patients and healthcare professionals.
4.6 Healthcare
Overall, fulfilling pharmacovigilance objectives for patient and public health depends on the effective and efficient integration of risk assessment and regulatory risk minimisation measures in healthcare processes, which is a major task ahead for communication. A number of points about why it remains difficult to connect pharmacovigilance and healthcare were raised at the audience discussion during the 2015 ISoP Annual Meeting [58]. This discussion highlighted the need to create comprehensible communication between healthcare professionals and patients about the benefits and harms of medicines, and for more research to better understand the obstacles in connecting pharmacovigilance and healthcare and in communicating effectively. At the CommSIG online meeting in June 2021, it was further emphasised that communication about harms and risk minimisation with healthcare professionals is not satisfactory, that both innovative and traditionally effective outreach tools are important, and that mutual engagement of regulatory bodies and stakeholders, and a stronger integration of pharmacovigilance and healthcare with collaboration across institutions and training on communicating with patients are needed. For this, guidance on language understandable to patients and the general public is required. Communication regarding vaccines was identified as being of particular relevance and inappropriate adverting of medicines as an area of concern. Only in the last 10 years has patient reporting of adverse events taken off widely, with countries providing means for patients and carers to submit electronic reports directly to their national pharmacovigilance centres [156]. People have specifically engaged in directly reporting suspected adverse reactions with COVID-19 vaccines [157]. Mobile information technology for direct reporting as well as for medicines supply management and therapeutic guideline dissemination offer great opportunities for health globally, as they are also feasible in low resource settings [158,159,160]. Independently from technology, psychology has shown that human understanding and beneficial behaviours rely on the match between risk perception and the actual impact of harms, and on effective mental shortcuts for daily decision making [161, 162]. Decisions regarding use of medicines are determined by personal as well social judgements about the acceptance of risk [163]. The CommSIG considers that strategies for connecting pharmacovigilance and healthcare should be based on the premise that people’s awareness and skills should be boosted and empowered, rather than patronised [164].
4.7 The CommSIG's Agreed Focus Areas:
Taking into account the considerations above, the CommSIG agreed that, building on its mandate and achievements to date, it should continue to progress medicinal product risk communication in the 2020s in the following areas of focus:
-
1.
Medicinal product risk communication practice and research capacity: To understand and apply to pharmacovigilance cognitive and communication concepts and research, digital technologies, including electronic prescribing/dispensing, and traditional and new dissemination modes that make use of local opportunities to involve relevant stakeholders and reach different audiences, including those who are at specific risks, are difficult to reach, or are disadvantaged by society.
-
2.
Health literacy for pharmacovigilance: To support the development and use of clear technical as well as generally understandable languages for ‘speaking pharmacovigilance’ in healthcare and public domains, to enable informed therapeutic choices and safe use of medicines for everyone, to support reporting of suspected adverse reactions, and to contribute to counteracting infodemics, in particular regarding vaccines.
-
3.
Integration of pharmacovigilance and healthcare for patient safety: To promote integration of pharmacovigilance and healthcare by means of communication, engagement of patients, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders, and implementation science with evaluation of impacts, barriers, and enablers of risk minimisation for sustainable patient safety.
For further progress, sharing examples from around the globe and sharing discussions will continue at ISoP sessions, and training webinars could conveniently supplement in-person pre-conference courses of ISoP’s annual meetings. Synergies within and beyond ISoP will be nurtured for cross-fertilisation of ideas and generating evidence for novel and effective communication strategies. Possibilities for collaboration with other forums will be explored. Among future activities, a workshop with ISoP members experienced in media interactions, as well as professional media trainers and journalists, on pharmacovigilance and safety communication is under consideration, as well as a similarly multidisciplinary workshop to address vaccine safety communication and strategies for counteracting misinformation during infodemics. The 2022 ISoP Annual Meeting in Verona therefore included a session on communication during health crises, with two examples on vaccines [165,166,167].
5 Conclusions
Since its launch in 2014, the ISoP CommSIG has successfully fulfilled its mandate to support the establishment of risk communication as a discipline within pharmacovigilance; to encourage multidisciplinary exchange, learning, and practice development; and to start promoting research for planning and evaluating communication interventions. This article consolidates the knowledge shared and progress achieved by the CommSIG to date and explains the CommSIG’s directions for the 2020s, which are meant to contribute to ISoP’s overall strategic goals.
The first years of the CommSIG have been devoted to setting up and enlarging a group that now includes members from different pharmacovigilance settings worldwide. While pharmacovigilance communication had been part of ISoP’s initial vision and was addressed at some of its annual meetings before 2014, the CommSIG has drawn together the knowledge and expert networks of its members. It has provided dedicated sessions and/or contributed to training courses at all ISoP annual meetings, and has created synergies within and beyond ISoP. The CommSIG intends to continue strengthening risk communication in pharmacovigilance worldwide, so that medicines can be used in an informed manner, safely, and with trust in pharmacovigilance systems.
The CommSIG recognises that both communication and pharmacovigilance are evolving topics in the context of broader changes in society, media, and healthcare. Communicators, such as journalists, press officers, and providers of medicines information, patient organisations, and individual healthcare professionals need support in communicating with the public and patients, to improve understanding and dialogue, considerations of potential benefits and harms with medicines, and informed therapeutic choices. They need to be supported by basic knowledge of pharmacovigilance and risk communication skills. Pharmacovigilance specialists, whether in regulatory bodies, pharmaceutical companies, or healthcare settings, should therefore collaborate with communicators. Moreover, listening to and engaging with patients and healthcare professionals needs to become a stronger part of the pharmacovigilance communication process in order to understand fully the impact and perceptions of the risks in clinical contexts, and to identify which safety, risk, and risk minimisation messages may work best. This engagement should also create public understanding and trust in regulatory decisions and actions. The immediate future of safe use of medicines, with emerging pharmaceutical technologies, poses different demands in relation to the variety of medicinal products.
For the 2020s, the CommSIG has therefore set itself three focus areas: medicinal product risk communication practice and research capacity; health literacy for pharmacovigilance; and integration of pharmacovigilance and healthcare for patient safety. The CommSIG exists in a world of diversity and inequity, where messages need to be tailored for diverse populations with the aim of reducing health inequities. The CommSIG will continue to connect within the ISoP community, access expertise from beyond pharmacovigilance, and create synergies for global progress, inspiring solutions that can be adapted to different settings and parts of the world. The ISoP CommSIG looks forward to continuing to contribute to safer medicines use worldwide.
References (including references for Appendices 1 and 2)
Special Interest Group on Medicinal Product Risk Communication of the International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP CommSIG). https://isoponline.org/special-interest-groups/risk-communication-group/. Accessed 19 Sept 2020.
Erice Declaration: effective communications in pharmacovigilance (report of the International Conference on Developing Effective Communications in Pharmacovigilance held in Erice, 24-27 September 1997, organised by the Uppsala Monitoring Centre (UMC), the Clinical Pharmacology Unit of Verona University, the International School of Pharmacology of the Ettore Majorana Centre for Scientific Culture in Erice, Italy and the World Health Organization, and supported by EQUUS Communications, London). Uppsala: UMC; 1997.
Statement E. communication, medicines and patient safety (report of the Workshop on Drug Risk Communication held in Erice, 3–8 July 2009, organised by the International School of Pharmacology at the Ettore Majorana Foundation and Centre for Scientific Culture in Erice, Italy, in collaboration with the International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP), the SK Foundation and the Uppsala Monitoring Centre (UMC)). Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2009;2010(69):207–8.
Bahri P, Dodoo AN, Edwards BD, Edwards IR, Fermont I, Hagemann U, Hartigan-Go K, Hugman B, Mol PG; on behalf of the ISoP CommSIG. The ISoP CommSIG for Improving Medicinal Product Risk Communication: A New Special Interest Group of the International Society of Pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf. 2015; 38:621–27.
14th Annual Meeting of ISoP. https://isoponline.org/annual-meetings/isop-2014-annual-meeting/. Accessed 30 Jan 2022.
International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP). Special interest groups: women’s medicines. https://isoponline.org/special-interest-groups/womens-medicines-group/. Accessed 12 Feb 2022.
International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP). Special interest groups: herbal and traditional medicines. https://isoponline.org/special-interest-groups/herbal-and-traditional-medicines-2/. Accessed 12 Feb 2022.
International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP). Special interest groups: medication errors. https://isoponline.org/special-interest-groups/medication-errors/. Accessed 13 May 2021.
International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP). Special interest groups: vaccines. https://isoponline.org/special-interest-groups/vaccine-surveillance/. Accessed 13 May 2021.
International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP). Special interest groups: risk minimisation methods for Asian countries. https://isoponline.org/special-interest-groups/risk-minimisation-methods-for-asian-countries/. Accessed 12 Feb 2022.
International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP). Special interest groups: patient engagement. https://isoponline.org/special-interest-groups/isop-patient-engagement-group/#. Accessed 12 Feb 2022.
McCarthy D, Bahri P, Barnes J, Delumeau J-C, Edwards B, Harrison-Woolrych M. An update on ISoP special interest groups (SIGs). Drug Saf. 2018;41:1–6.
Bahri P. Transparency, communication and participation in pharmacovigilance [presentation]. In: Accra: 2nd African Society of pharmacovigilance conference; 25–27 November 2015.
Bahri P, Schaefer C (moderator: Hageman U). From risk perception to risk communication [training session]. Berlin: Training Course on Risk Assessment of Drug Use During Pregnancy and Lactation”, organised by the European Network of Teratology Information Services (ENTIS) and the International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP) in collaboration with the Norwegian PhD School in Pharmacy (NFIF); 2–3 June 2016.
Fermont RI, Amitai A, Livneh A, Kalamaro V, Litman R, Pitts P, Sevdalis N, Bahri P, Edwards B, Elad A. National campaign in an Israeli chain of community-based pharmacies to decrease the risks of anticoagulants [conference abstract]. Drug Saf. 2018;41:1111 (abstract O-014).
Israeli Chapter of ISoP. 360° of drug safety: minimize risks, improve communication—1st ISoP Israel international symposium, Tel Aviv, 3–4 June 2019. https://www.isopisrael2019.org. Accessed 13 May 2021.
International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP). Resources: infographics. https://isoponline.org/resources-3/infographics/. Accessed 13 May 2021.
Caro-Rojas A. The ISoP infographics and the ISoP communication strategy: new ways for outreach of our Society [presentation]. In: 20th annual meeting of the international society of pharmacovigilance (ISoP) in Muscat, 9 November 2021.
Israeli Chapter of ISoP. 2nd online summit: drug safety in the COVID area. 2020. https://www.isopisrael.org.il/drug-safety-in-the-covid-era. Accessed 13 May 2021.
Tuccori M, Convertino I, Ferraro S, Cappello E, Valdiserra G, Focosi D, Blandizzi C. The impact of the COVID-19 “Infodemic” on drug-utilization behaviors: implications for pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf. 2020;43:699–709.
Israeli Chapter of ISoP. Tell us a safety story—season 2 [webinar series]. 4 November–23 December 2020. https://isoponline.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/20201104-AGENDA-Safety-Case-Story.pdf. Accessed 13 May 2021.
Bahri P, Morales DR, A Inoubli, Dogné JM, Straus SMJM. Proposals for engaging patients and healthcare professionals in risk minimisation from an analysis of stakeholder input to the EU valproate assessment using the novel Analysing Stakeholder Safety Engagement Tool (ASSET). Drug Saf. 2021;44:193–209 (epub 30 Oct 2020).
Latin American Chapter of ISoP. Vigilance of COVID-19 vaccines [webinar series]. 2021. https://isoponline.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/web-announcement-29012021-scaled.jpg. Accessed 13 May 2021.
Bahri P. Communication of safety signals: what, when and where [training]. 20th Annual Meeting of the International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP). Pre-conference course programme. Muscat. 2021. https://www.isop2021oman.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2021110204-ISoP-2021-pre-conference-training-course-II-preliminary-programme-20210908_EvP2.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2022.
Bahri P. A multilayered research framework for humanities and epidemiology of medicinal product risk communication. In: Bahri P, editor. Communicating about risks and safe use of medicines: real life and applied research. Singapore: Springer; 2020. p. 1–84.
Neth H. Risk Factors, psychology and communication [conference abstract]. Drug Saf. 2015;38:960 (abstract O57).
Raynor DK. Talking about harm and benefit information: the challenges in healthcare practice [conference abstract]. Drug Saf. 2015;38:960 (abstract O56).
Houÿez F. Communicating on risks: clear questions, clear responses? [presentation]. In: Geneva: 18th annual meeting of the international society of pharmacovigilance; 11–14 November 2018.
Wessling S. Coordinated communication in crises and in everyday work [presentation]. In: Geneva: 18th annual meeting of the international society of pharmacovigilance; 11–14 November 2018.
Nazakat S. Visualised information: experiences from Asia with digital media [presentation]. In: 20th annual meeting of the international society of pharmacovigilance (ISoP) in Muscat, 9 November 2021.
Bahri P, Harrison-Woolrych M. Focussing on risk communication about medicines: why now? [editorial]. Drug Saf. 2012;35:971–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03261984.
Cox AR, Butt TF. Adverse drug reactions: when the risk becomes a reality for patients. Drug Saf. 2012;35:977–81.
Fischhoff B. Good decision making requires good communication. Drug Saf. 2012;35:983–93.
Hartigan-Go K. Challenges of drug risk communication in the Philippines. Drug Saf. 2012;35:995–1004.
Hugman B. Protecting the people?: risk communication and the chequered history and performance of bureaucracy. Drug Saf. 2012;35:1005–25.
Edwards B, Chakraborty S. Risk communication and the pharmaceutical industry: what is the reality. Drug Saf. 2012;35:1027–40.
Dodoo A, Hugman B. Risk perception and communication in Sub-Saharan Africa. Drug Saf. 2012;35:1041–52.
Larson H, Brocard Paterson P, Erondu N. The globalisation of risk and risk perception: why we need a new model of risk communication for vaccines. Drug Saf. 2012;35:1053–9.
Piening S, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, de Graeff PA, Straus SMJM, Mol PGM. Healthcare professionals’ self-reported experiences and preferences related to direct healthcare professional communications: a survey conducted in the Netherlands. Drug Saf. 2012;35:1061–72.
Bahri P. Public pharmacovigilance communication: a process calling for evidence-based, objective-driven strategies. Drug Saf. 2010;33:1065–79.
Fischhoff B, Brewer NT, Downs JS, editors. Communicating risks and benefits: an evidence-based user’s guide. Silver Spring, MA: US Food and Drug Administration; 2011. https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/reports/communicating-risks-and-benefits-evidence-based-users-guide. Accessed 13 May 2021.
Winstanley G. Safety issue communication requirements [presentation]. In: Bogotá: 19th annual meeting of the international society of pharmacovigilance; 26–29 October 2019.
Delumeau JC, Le Louet H, Moride Y, Chen WW, Suwankesawong W, Nguyen HA. A model to guide designing risk-proportionate risk minimisation and vigilance programs [conference abstract]. Drug Saf. 2016;39:1029 (abstract P083).
Caro-Rojas A. Health care communication empowerment: a successful programme in Colombia [conference abstract]. Drug Saf. 2018;41:1111 (abstract O-012).
Geer MI, Shah PA, Masoodi SR, Dar PA, Jan M, Iqbal MJ, Khan AM, Zahida A, Mir J, Kumar TA. Drug utilization evaluation as a tool for minimizing risk and promoting rational use of medicines [conference abstract]. Drug Saf. 2016;39:1010 (abstract P040).
Palacios JM. Theatre in indigenous populations and pharmacovigilance [presentation]. In: Bogotá: 19th annual meeting of the international society of pharmacovigilance; 26–29 October 2019.
Oppamayun Y, Suwankaesawong W, Rattanaphan C. Communication tool for better safety outcome in using medicines [conference abstract]. Drug Saf. 2016;39:1022 (abstract P066).
Macolić Šarinić V. Risk communication in the European Union: highlights from Croatia as a regional example [conference abstract]. Drug Saf. 2015;38:959 (abstract O55)
Sultana J, Giorgianni F, Tillati S, Sturkenboom M, G Trifiro. Did the safety warnings minimize the risk of antipsychotic-related stroke in elderly people with dementia? [conference abstract]. Drug Saf. 2016;39:1019 (abstract P061).
Bouhlel M, Daghfous R, El Aidli S. Central to risk communication in healthcare: the national pharmacovigilance centre in Tunisia [conference abstract]. Drug Saf. 2018;41:1111 (abstract O-013).
Hugman BPJ. Urgent and important: good information on medicines for women worldwide [presentation]. In: Geneva: 18th annual meeting of the International Society of Pharmacovigilance; 11–14 November 2018.
The Health Communication Capacity Collaborative. The P-Process: five steps to strategic communication. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for Communication Programs; 2013 (developed in 1982). http://www.thehealthcompass.org/sbcc-tools/p-process. Accessed 13 May 2021.
Edwards B. Human factor science for improving the impact of risk communication [conference abstract]. Drug Saf. 2018;41:1110 (abstract O-011).
Charted Institute of Ergonomics & Human Factors (CIEHF). What is ergonomics: find out how it makes life better. Birmingham: CIEHF. https://www.ergonomics.org.uk/Public/Resources/What_is_Ergonomics_/Public/Resources/What_is_Ergonomics_.aspx?hkey=2769db3e-4b5b-46c2-864c-dfcf2e44372d. Accessed 2 Sept 2019.
National Center for Human Factors in Healthcare. What is human factors in healthcare? Washington, DC: National Center for Human Factors in Healthcare. Human factors in healthcare. Accessed 8 Jun 2019.
Tsukahara VHB, Calil SJ. Root cause analysis combined with human factors engineering tools for adverse events investigation in healthcare. In: Kyriacou E, Christofides S, Pattichis C, editors. XIV Mediterranean conference on medical and biological engineering and computing 2016 [IFMBE Proceedings, Vol 57]. Springer, 2016.
Santoro F, Norgèla G. #MedSafetyWeek: joining forces on social media to raise ADR awareness [conference abstract]. Drug Saf. 2019;42:1215 (abstract 19).
Bahri P, Edwards BD. Patient safety through dialogue: how to better connect pharmacovigilance and healthcare? [conference abstract]. Drug Saf. 2015; 38: 959 (abstract O53). (Bengt Erik Wiholm Lecture. In: Prague: 15th annual meeting of the International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP); 27–30 October 2015).
Bahri P, Ilic K, Hagemann U. Communication: the key to implementation of risk management and patient safety [conference abstract]. Drug Saf. 2018;41:1110 (abstract O-010).
Bahri P, Dodoo AN. Risk communication—“Snakes and Ladders” and a strategic approach to risk minimisation in healthcare [slides for introduction by session chairs]. In: Agra: 16th annual meeting of the International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP); 16–19 October 2016.
Mol PGM; on behalf of SCOPE work package 6. Healthcare professionals’ perspectives on regulatory safety communication about medicines: the Strengthening Collaboration for Operating Pharmacovigilance in Europe (SCOPE) joint action [conference abstract]. Drug Saf. 2015;38:959 (abstract O54).
Anton C, Coleman J, Ferner R, New T, Pontefract S. Systematic instructions for haematological monitoring in summary of product characteristics: what constitutes good practice [conference abstract]. Drug Saf. 2019;42:1249 (abstract 87).
Sless D, Wiseman R. Writing about medicines for people: Usability guidelines for consumer medicine information. 2nd ed. Canberra: Department of Health and Family Services; 1997.
European Commission (EC). Guideline on the readability of the labelling and package leaflet of medicinal products for human use. Rev 1. Brussels: EC; 2009. https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/default/files/files/eudralex/vol-2/c/2009_01_12_readability_guideline_final_en.pdf. Accessed 13 May 2021.
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Always read the leaflet [report of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, Working Group on Patient Information]. London: MHRA; 2005.
Minister of Health, Canada. Strategic risk communications framework and handbook. Ottawa: Minister of Health, Canada; 2006.
European Commission (EC). Volume 9A of the Rules Governing Medicinal Products in the EU: pharmacovigilance guidelines. Brussels: EC; 2006: Chapter IV.2.
Canada H. Guide for using the standardized health product risk communication template. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2015.
Bhasale AL, Sarpatwari A, De Bruin ML, Lexchin J, Lopert R, Bahri P, Mintzes BJ. Post-market safety communication for protection of public health: a comparison of regulatory policy in Australia, Canada, the European Union, and the United States. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020 (epub).
Hirose M. Risk communication with patients (abstract in English)] [Japanese]. Yakugaku Zasshi. 2012;132(5):561–2. https://doi.org/10.1248/yakushi.132.561.
Isozaki M. Present state and future tasks of “Drug Guide for Patients” (abstract in English)] [Japanese]. Yakugaku Zasshi. 2015;135(2):271–175. https://doi.org/10.1248/yakushi.14-00232-1.
Kondo E, Torii M, Oba I, Okamoto M. The Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency’s approach to facilitate risk communication and its challenges (abstract in English)] [Japanese]. Yakugaku Zasshi. 2018;138(3):307–14. https://doi.org/10.1248/yakushi.17-00185-2.
European Medicines Agency (EMA). Pharmacoepidemiological Research on Outcomes of Therapeutics by a European ConsorTium (PROTECT): results and their impact on regulatory practice [report]. London: EMA; 2016. http://www.imi-protect.eu/documents/ReportImpactPROTECT_002.pdf. Accessed 13 May 2021.
Hughes D, Waddingham EAJ, Mt-Isa S, Goginsky A, Chan E, Downey G, Hallgreen CE, Hockley KS, Juhaeri J, Lieftucht A, Metcalfe MA, Noel RA, Phillips L, Ashby D, Micaleff A; on behalf of the Pharmacoepidemiological Research on Outcomes of Therapeutics by a European ConsorTium (PROTECT) Work Package 5. Recommendations for the methodology and visualisation techniques to be used in the assessment of benefit and risk of medicines [undated]. http://www.imi-protect.eu/documents/HughesetalRecommendationsforthemethodologyandvisualisationtechniquestobeusedintheassessmento.pdf. Accessed 13 May 2021.
Larson H, Karafillakis E, Yiangou A, Bahri P, Fogd J, Kurz J, et al.; ADVANCE consortium. Developing communication strategies on vaccine benefits and risks: guidance for public-private collaborations. Accelerated Development of VAccine beNefit-risk Collaboration in Europe (ADVANCE); 2017. https://vac4eu.org/results-communication/. Accessed 13 May 2021.
Karafillakis E, Larson HJ; ADVANCE consortium. The benefit of the doubt or doubts over benefits? A systematic literature review of perceived risks of vaccines in European populations. Vaccines. 2017;35:4840–50.
Bahri P, Fogd J, Morales D, Kurz X, ADVANCE consortium. Application of real-time global media monitoring and ‘derived questions’ for enhancing communication by regulatory bodies: the case of human papillomavirus vaccines. BMC Med. 2017;15:91.
Montero D. SCOPE joint action work package 6 on risk communication [presentation]. 2016. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/presentation/presentation-scope-joint-action-work-package-6-risk-communication-dolores-montero_en.pdf. Accessed 13 May 2021.
Radecka A, Loughlin L, Foy M, de Ferraz Guimaraes MV, Macolic Sarinic V, Dimov Di Giusti, Lesicar M, Straus S, Montero D, Pallos J, Ivanovic J, Raine J. Enhancing pharmacovigilance capabilities in the EU regulatory network: the SCOPE Joint Action. Drug Saf. 2018;41:1285–302.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicines. In: Communicating clearly about medicines: Proceedings of a workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2017.
Kesselheim AS, Campbell EG, Schneeweiss S, Rausch P, Lappin BM, Zhou EH, Seeger JD, Brownstein JS, Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Toomey T, Dal Pan GJ, Avorn J. Methodological approaches to evaluate the impact of FDA drug safety communications. Drug Saf. 2015;38:565–75.
Kesselheim AS, McGraw AS, Dejene SZ, Rausch P, Dal Pan GJ, Lappin BM, Zhou EH, Avorn J, Campbell EG. Patient and physician perceptions of drug safety information for sleep aids: a qualitative study. Drug Saf. 2017;40:531–42.
Kesselheim AS, Sinha MS, Campbell EG, Schneeweiss S, Rausch P, Lappin BM, Zhou EH, Avorn J, Dal Pan GJ. Multimodal analysis of FDA drug safety communications: lessons from zolpidem. Drug Saf. 2019;42:1287–95.
Sinha MS, Freifeld CC, Brownstein JS, Donneyong MM, Rausch P, Lappin BM, Zhou EH, Dal Pan GJ, Pawar AM, Hwang TJ, Avorn J, Kesselheim AS. Social media impact of the Food and Drug Administration’s drug safety communication messaging about zolpidem: mixed-methods analysis. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2018;4: e1.
Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Dejene S, Rausch P, Dal Pan GJ, Zhou EH, Kesselheim AS. Media coverage of FDA drug safety communications about zolpidem: a quantitative and qualitative analysis. J Health Commun. 2017;22:365–72.
Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, United Kingdom. First do no harm [report]. London: Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; 2020.
European Medicines Agency (EMA) and Heads of Medicines Agencies (HMA). Guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices—module XVI on risk minimisation measures: selection of tools and effectiveness indicators (rev 3) and Addendum II on Methods for effectiveness evaluation. Amsterdam: EMA; 2021. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/post-authorisation/pharmacovigilance/good-pharmacovigilance-practices#public-consultations-section. Accessed 13 May 2021.
Edwards IR. A new Erice Report considering the safety of medicines in the 21st century. Drug Saf. 2017;40:845–9.
Rocca E, Anjum RL. Erice call for change: utilising patient experiences to enhance the quality and safety of healthcare. Drug Saf. 2020;43:513–5.
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). https://cioms.ch. Accessed 13 May 2021.
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). CIOMS guide on vaccine safety communication. Geneva: CIOMS; 2017. https://cioms.ch/publications/product/cioms-guide-vaccine-safety-communication. Accessed 13 May 2021.
Bahri P, Rägo L; on behalf of the CIOMS Working Group on Vaccine Safety. CIOMS guide to vaccine safety communication: executive summary. Vaccine. 2019;37:401–8.
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). Working Group XI: patient involvement in development and safe use of medicines. https://cioms.ch/working-groups/working-group-xi-patient-involvement. Accessed 13 May 2021.
World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO Programme for International Drug Monitoring. Geneva: WHO. https://www.who.int/medicines/regulation/medicines-safety/about/drug_monitoring_prog/en/. Accessed 13 May 2021.
Bahri P, Harrison-Woolrych M. How to improve communication for the safe use of medicines?: discussions on social marketing and patient-tailored approaches at the annual meetings of the WHO Programme for International Drug Monitoring. Drug Saf. 2012;35:1073–9.
World Health Organization (WHO). Pharmacovigilance resources. Geneva: WHO. https://whopvresources.org. Accessed 13 Mar 2022.
Uppsala Monitoring Centre (UMC). Uppsala: UMC. https://www.who-umc.org. Accessed 13 May 2021.
International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology. Special Interest Group in Benefit-Risk Assessment, Communication and Evaluation (BRACE). https://www.pharmacoepi.org/communities/sigs/brace. Accessed 13 May 2021.
Radawski C, Morrato E, Hornbuckle K, Bahri P, Smith M, Juhaeri J, Mol P, Levitan B, Huang H-Y, Coplan P, Li H; on behalf of the ISPE BRACE SIG. Benefit-risk assessment, communication and evaluation (BRACE) throughout the life cycle of therapeutic products: overall perspective and role of the pharmacoepidemiologist. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2015;24:1233–40.
Radawski CA, Hammad TA, Colilla S, Coplan P, Hornbuckle K, Freeman E, Smith MY, Sobel RE, Bahri P, Arias AE, Bennett D. The utility of real-world evidence for benefit-risk assessment, communication, and evaluation of pharmaceuticals: case studies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2020;29:1532–9.
Smith MY, Russel A, Bahri P, Mol PGM, Frise S, Freeman E, Morrato EH. The RIMES Statement: a checklist to assess the quality of studies evaluating risk minimization programs for medicinal products. Drug Saf. 2018;41:389–401.
Bahri P, ElShafie S, Hoÿez F, Leufkens HG, Morrato EH, Wegwarth O. Science communication of pharmacoepidemiology for patient and public health [plenary session]. In: ICPE All Access online conference; 2020.
Smith MY, Bahri P, Houÿez F, Lo Re V. Communicating COVID-19 pharmacoepidemiological research to patients [plenary session]. In: ICPE All Access online conference; 2021.
Harrison-Woolrych M, editor. Medicines for women. Cham: Springer; 2015.
Hugman B. Perspectives on risk communication and gender issues. In: Harrison-Woolrych M, editor. Medicines for women. Cham: Springer; 2015. p. 531–83.
Hugman B. Risk communication and specific medicines for women. In: Harrison-Woolrych M, editor. Medicines for women. Cham: Springer; 2015. p. 585–627.
Edwards IR, Lindquist M, editors. Pharmacovigilance: critique and ways forward. Cham: Springer; 2017.
Hugman B. Shaking up culture and communication in PV. In: Edwards IR, Lindquist M, editors. Pharmacovigilance: critique and ways forward. Cham: Springer; 2017. p. 81–97.
Bahri P, editor. Communicating about risks and safe use of medicines: real life and applied research. Singapore: Springer; 2020.
Dasgupta N, Winokur C, Pierce C. Social media research. In: Bahri P, editor. Communicating about risks and safe use of medicines: real life and applied research. Singapore: Springer; 2020. p. 307–32.
Fuchs J. Design science with a focus on user-centred evaluation of written information. In: Bahri P, editor. Communicating about risks and safe use of medicines: real life and applied research. Singapore: Springer; 2020. p. 333–84.
Houÿez F. From passive to active: patients as contributors to medicinal product risk communication research. In: Bahri P, editor. Communicating about risks and safe use of medicines: real life and applied research. Singapore: Springer; 2020. p. 457–80.
Leufkens HG. Pharmacoepidemiology. In: Bahri P, editor. Communicating about risks and safe use of medicines: real life and applied research. Singapore: Springer; 2020. p. 415–32.
Kshirsagar NA. Afterword: the dimension of communicating medicine risks in low- and middle-income countries. In: Bahri P, editor. Communicating about risks and safe use of medicines: real life and applied research. Singapore: Springer; 2020. p. 481–4.
Møllebæk M. Rhetoric and science and technology studies. In: Bahri P, editor. Communicating about risks and safe use of medicines: real life and applied research. Singapore: Springer; 2020. p. 267–84.
Morrato EH, Smith MY. Dissemination and implementation science. In: Bahri P, editor. Communicating about risks and safe use of medicines: real life and applied research. Singapore: Springer; 2020. p. 385–413.
Nowak GJ, Cacciatore MA. Media science and practice. In: Bahri P, editor. Communicating about risks and safe use of medicines: real life and applied research. Singapore: Springer; 2020. p. 285–305.
Rubinelli S, Diviani N, Fiordelli M. The cognitive and behavioural sciences. In: Bahri P, editor. Communicating about risks and safe use of medicines: real life and applied research. Singapore: Springer Nature; 2020. p. 195–217.
Sträter B. Legal frameworks. In: Bahri P, editor. Communicating about risks and safe use of medicines: real life and applied research. Singapore: Springer; 2020. p. 433–55.
Taylor BJ, SA Moorhead. The social sciences. In: Bahri P, editor. Communicating about risks and safe use of medicines: real life and applied research. Singapore: Springer; 2020. pp. 219–65.
van Thiel G. Ethical framework. In: Bahri P, editor. Communicating about risks and safe use of medicines: real life and applied research. Singapore: Springer; 2020. p. 181–93.
NEJM Catalyst. Patients and consumers in 2030 [webinar]. 2021.
Aronson JK. "Collaborative care" is preferable to "patient centred care". BMJ. 2016;353:i2926.
Brown P, Bahri P. ‘Engagement’ of patients and healthcare professionals in regulatory pharmacovigilance: establishing a conceptual and methodological framework. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2019;75:1181–92.
Bahri P, Pariente A. Systematising pharmacovigilance engagement of patients, healthcare professionals and regulators—a practical decision-guide derived from the International Risk Governance Framework for engagement events and discourse. Drug Saf. 2021;44:1193–208.
Böl G-F. The COVID-19 pandemic: agile versus blundering communication during a worldwide crisis. EMBO Rep. 2021;22: e53182.
Löfstedt RE. Risk management in post-trust societies. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan; 2005.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Does the public trust science? Trust and confidence at the intersections of the life sciences and society [workshop summary]. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2015.
Reh G, Ronte H, Gupta L, Varia H. Overcoming biopharma’s trust deficit. New York: Deloitte Center for Health Solutions; 2021.
Way D, Blazsin H, Löfstedt R, Bouder F. Pharmaceutical benefit-risk communication tools: a review of the literature. Drug Saf. 2017;40:15–36.
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. The drug facts box: providing consumers with simple tabular data on drug benefit and harm. Med Decis Mak. 2007;27:655–62.
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms: two randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:516–27.
Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R, Gigerenzer G. Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: overcoming low numeracy. Health Psychol. 2009;28:210–6.
Trevena LJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Edwards A, Gaissmaier W, Galesic M, Han PKJ, et al. Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(Suppl. 2):S7.
Bahri P. Infographics, pictograms, and visualised risk estimates for pharmacovigilance: between demand and evidence [presentation]. In: 20th annual meeting of the International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP) in Muscat, 9 November 2021.
World Health Organization (WHO). The impact of COVID-19 on global health goals. Geneva: WHO; 2021. https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-global-health-goals. Accessed 13 Mar 2022.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). COVID-19: the socio-economic impact. New York: UNDP; 2022. https://www.undp.org/coronavirus/socio-economic-impact-covid-19. Accessed 13 Mar 2022.
Rothkopf DJ. SARS also spurs an ‘information epidemic’. Newsday. 2003. https://www.proquest.com/docview/279705520. Accessed 29 May 2022.
World Health Organization (WHO). Joint statement by WHO, UN, UNICEF, UNDP, UNESCO, UNAIDS, ITU, UN global pulse, and IFRC. Managing the COVID-19 infodemic: promoting healthy behaviours and mitigating the harm from misinformation and disinformation. Geneva: WHO; 2020. https://www.who.int/news/item/23-09-2020-managing-the-covid-19-infodemic-promoting-healthy-behaviours-and-mitigating-the-harm-from-misinformation-and-disinformation#:~:text=An%20infodemic%20is%20an%20overabundance%20of%20information%2C%20both,and%20advance%20alternative%20agendas%20of%20groups%20or%20individuals. Accessed 13 May 2021.
"infodemic, n." OED Online, Oxford University Press; 2022. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/88407009. Accessed 11 Sept 2022.
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Vaccine misinformation management field guide. UNICEF: New York; 2020.
Cinelli M, Quattrociocchi W, Galeazzi A, Valensise CM, Brugnoli E, Schmidt AL, Zola P, Zollo F, Scala A. The COVID-19 social media infodemic. Sci Rep. 2020;10:16598.
Gisondi MA, Barber R, Faust JS, Raja A, Strehlow MC, Westafer LM, Gottlieb M. A deadly infodemic: social media and the power of COVID-19 misinformation. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24: e35552.
Ballantyne N. Epistemic trespassing. Mind. 2019;128:367–95.
Smith MY, Bahri P, Gaudino JA Jr, Moreira RS, Danyluk GM, Palevsky SL. The role of epidemiologists in communicating SARS-CoV-2 evidence: a call for adopting epidemiological literacy standards. Intern J Epidemiol. 2021;50:1410–5 (Epub 28 June 2021).
Gigerenzer G, Gray JAM, editors. Better doctors, better patients, better decisions: envisioning health care 2020. Boston: MIT Press; 2011.
Institute of Medicine. Health literacy: improving health, health systems, and health policy around the world [workshop summary]. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2013.
Institute of Medicine. Characterizing and communicating uncertainty in the assessment of benefits and risks of pharmaceutical products: workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2014.
Ioannidis JP, Evans SJ, Gotzsche PC, O’Neill RT, Altman DG, Schulz K, et al. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Annu Intern Med. 2004;141(10):781–8.
Slovic P. The feeling of risk: new perspectives on risk perception. London, Washington DC: Earthscan, 2010.
Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ. Risk communication: a mental models approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
Häuser W, Hansen E, Enck P. Nocebo phenomena in medicine: their relevance in everyday clinical practice. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2012;109:459–65.
Furlan G, Power D. The unintended consequences of adverse event information on medicines’ risks and label content. Pharm Med. 2020;34:369–80.
Haas JW, Bender FL, Ballou S, Kelley JM, Wilhelm M, Miller FG, Rief W, Kaptchuk TJ. Frequency of adverse events in the placebo arms of COVID-19 vaccine trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5: e2143955.
Larson HJ, Jarrett C, Eckersberger E, Smith DMD, Paterson P. Understanding vaccine hesitancy around vaccines and vaccination from a global perspective: a systematic review of published literature, 2007–2012. Vaccine. 2014;32:2150–9.
van Hunsel. Signals from a national spontaneous reporting system: what regulatory action do they lead to? [presentation]. DIA Global; 2020.
Genov G, Bahri P, Zaccaria C. Pharmacovigilance for COVID-19 vaccines: prospects and plans for 2022 [presentation]. European Medicines Agency Patient and Consumers’ and Healthcare Professionals’ Working Parties joint meeting. Amsterdam; 2–3 March 2022. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/presentation/presentation-pharmacovigilance-covid-19-vaccines-prospects-plans-2022-ggenov-pbahri-czaccaria-ema_en.pdf. Accessed 27 Apr 2022.
Adedeji AA, Sanusi B, Tella A, Akinsanya M, Ojo O, Akinwunmi MO, Tikare OA, Ogunwande IA, Ogundahunsi OA, Ayilara OO, Ademola TT, Fehintola FA, Ogundahunsi OAT. Exposure to anti-malarial drugs and monitoring of adverse drug reactions using toll-free mobile phone calls in private retail sector in Sagamu, Nigeria: implications for pharmacovigilance. Malar J. 2011;10:230.
Machingura PI, Adekola O, Mueni E, Oaiya O, Gustafsson LL, Heller RF. Perceived value of applying information communication technology to implement guidelines in developing countries; an online questionnaire study among public health workers. Online J Public Health Inform. 2014;6: e180.
Nilseng J, Gustafsson LL, Nungu A, Bastholm-Rahmner P, Mazali D, Pehrson B, Eriksen J. A cross-sectional pilot study assessing needs and attitudes to implementation of information and communication technology for rational use of medicines among healthcare staff in rural Tanzania. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2014;14:78.
Gigerenzer G, Todd PM, and the ABC Research Group. Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press; 1999.
Todd PM, Gigerenzer G, and the ABC Research Group. Ecological rationality: intelligence in the world. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012.
Strom BL. Pharmacoepidemiology. 4th ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2005.
Grüne-Yano T, Hertwig R. Nudge versus boost: how coherent are policy and theory? Mind Mach. 2016;26:149–83.
21st Annual Meeting of the International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP). Conference programme. Verona: 20–23 September 2022. https://www.isop2022verona.org. Accessed 27 Apr 2022.
Hartigan-Go K. When public health and politics clash: communicating about Dengvaxia between science and emotions [conference abstract]. Drug Saf. 2022;45:1129 (abstract O-026).
Kant A, Tuccori M. How do local contexts relate to public health communication? Communicating about COVID-19 vaccines in Italy and the Netherlands [presentation]. In: 21th annual meeting of the International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP). Verona: 20–23 September 2022.
Raynor DK. User testing in developing patient medication information in Europe. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2013;9(5):640–5.
Raynor DK, Blenkinsopp A, Knapp P, Grime J, Nicolson DJ, Pollock K, Dorer G, Gilbody S, Dickinson D, Maule AJ, Spoor P. A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative research on role and effectiveness of written information available to patients about individual medicines. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:iii (1–160).
Dickinson R, DK Raynor, Knapp P, MacDonald J. Providing additional information about the benefits of statins in a leaflet for patients with coronary heart disease: a qualitative study of the impact on attitudes and beliefs. BMJ Open. 2016;6(12):e012000 (published online 2 Dec 2016).
Herxheimer A. Communicating with patients about harms and risks. PLoS Med. 2005;2: e42.
Raynor DK. The benefits of medicines outweigh the risks of treatment—says who? Pharm J. 2013;290:616–7.
Gigerenzer G, Hoffrage U. How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: frequency formats. Psychol Rev. 1995;102:684–704.
Gigerenzer G. Risk savvy: how to make good decisions. New York: Penguin; 2014.
Bodemer N, Gaissmaier W. Risk communication in health. In: Roeser S, Hillerbrand R, Sandin P, Peterson M, editors. Hand book of risk theory: epistemology, decision theory, ethics, and social amplification of risk. Dordrecht: Springer; 2012. p. 621–60.
Shibata A, Whittemore AS. Re: Prostate cancer incidence and mortality in the United States and the United Kingdom. J Naty Canc Inst. 2001;93:1109–10.
Welch HG, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Are increasing 5-year survival rates evidence of success against cancer? J Am Med Assoc. 2000;283:2975–8.
Piening S, de Graeff PA, Straus SMJM, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Mol PGM. The additional value of an e-mail to inform healthcare professionals of a drug safety issue: a randomized controlled trial in the Netherlands. Drug Saf. 2013;36:723–31.
Reber KC, Piening S, Wieringa JE, Straus SMJM, Raine JM, de Graeff PA, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Mol PGM. When direct health-care professional communications have an impact on inappropriate and unsafe use of medicines. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 203;93:360–5.
Tadin J, Macolić Šarinić V. Communicating safety issues: the Croatian experience. Uppsala Rep. 2012;57:15.
Theatre group ‘Mala Scena’. http://www.mala-scena.hr. Accessed 19 Sept 2020.
Geer MI, Shah PA, Tanki SA, Shah MY. Frequency types, severity, preventability and costs of adverse drug reactions at a tertiary care hospital. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods. 2016;81:323–34.
Sultana J, Fontana A, Giorgianni F, Tillati S, Cricelli C, Pasqua A, Patorno E, Ballard C, Sturkenboom M, Trifirò G. Measuring the effectiveness of safety warnings on the risk of stroke in older antipsychotic users: a nationwide cohort study in two large electronic medical records databases in the United Kingdom and Italy. Drug Saf. 2019;42:1471–85.
Aronson JK. The Bengt Erik Wiholm Lecture 2017: the language of pharmacovigilance [conference abstract]. Drug Saf. 2017;40:1037 (abstract 273).
Aronson JK. Lost in translation: a multilingual survey of interlinguistic variations in terms used in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf. 2022;45:1363–8.
The importance of communication in pharmacovigilance [session sponsored by the ISoP CommSIG]. In: Conference programme. Bogotá: 19th annual meeting of the International Society of Pharmacovigilance; 26–29 October 2019.
Ferner RE, Coleman J, Pirmohamed M, Constable SA, Rouse A. The quality of information on monitoring for haematological adverse drug reactions. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2005;60:448–51.
Geerts AFJ, De Koning FHP, Van Solinge WW, De Smet PA, Egberts TC. Instructions on laboratory monitoring in 200 drug labels. Clin Lab Med. 2012;50:1352–8.
20th Annual Meeting of the International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP). In: Conference programme. Muscat: 8–10 November 2021. https://www.isop2021oman.org. Accessed 12 Feb 2022.
Foundation for Education and Research of the International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP). FIP Pictograms Software (webpage). Den Haag: FIP; 2017. https://www.fipfoundation.org/pictograms-support/pictogram-software/. Accessed 13 Mar 2022.
Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM). A l’attention des titulaires d’AMM, concernant l’apposition du "pictogramme femmes enceintes”. Saint-Denis: ANSM; 2018. https://ansm.sante.fr/uploads/2021/02/10/qr-picto-grossesse-septembre-2018-1.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2022.
European Medicines Agency (EMA). Combined hormonal contraceptives (webpage). London: EMA; 2013. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/post-authorisation/referral-procedures/combined-hormonal-contraceptives/. Accessed 13 Mar 2022.
Data Leads. About us. New Delhi: Data Leads; 2021. https://dataleads.co.in/about-us. Accessed 13 Mar 2022.
Darko D, Sabblah G, Amponsa-Achiano K, Antwi-Agyei KO. The value of patient reporting in signal generation. Drug Saf. 2014;37:874 (abstract P-086).
Anton C, Cox AR, Ferner RE. Regulatory action; medical inaction? Drug Saf. 2014;37:842 (abstract P-020).
Tomczyk ST. How the transparency data regulations are changing the communication regarding benefit-risk of medications. Drug Saf. 2014;37:883 (abstract P-103).
Balazs MA, Piko B. Do We need pharmacovigilance education and do adolescents have adequate knowledge regarding proper medicine use? Drug Saf. 2015;38:968 (abstract P017).
Lebanova H, Kalaijiev K, Getov I. Educational materials can have positive impact on patients’ knowledge of ADRs: a randomized controlled trial of novel educational booklet. Drug Saf. 2015;38:998 (abstract P087).
Azzarello D, Marinac B, Bwire R, O’Reilly A. Standardized messaging on product packaging as a mechanism to mitigate potential risks of medicinal products with known teratogenicity. Drug Saf. 2015;38:1015 (abstract P125).
Varallo F, Planeta C, Mastroianni P. Impact of pharmacovigilance multifaceted educational intervention on knowledge, skills and attitudes of a multidisciplinary healthcare team. Drug Saf. 2015;38:1037 (abstract P172).
Vishnu K, Mamatha KR, Jayanthi CR. Knowledge, attitude and practice towards pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction reporting among postgraduate medical students. Drug Saf. 2016;39:1011 (abstract P042).
Jadeja M. Evaluation of the first EU-wide social media ADR awareness week: 7–11 November 2016. Drug Saf. 2017;40:1025 (abstract 236).
Montastruc JL, Damase-Michel C, Lacroix I, Durrieu G, Montastruc F, Sommet A, BagherI H. Drugs, adverse drug reactions and pharmacovigilance in the adventures of Tintin. Drug Saf. 2017;40:941 (abstract 8).
Hugman B. Alternative facts: why patient safety is under threat and what we can do about it. Drug Saf. 2017;40:945 (abstract 21).
Pinar O, Guresci N, Unal B. Impact of internet and social media use in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf. 2017;40:1009 (abstract 189).
Maskell S. When does social media add value to pharmacovigilance? Drug Saf. 2017;40:1040 (abstract 280).
Dominicus H, Doua J, Verstraeten T. Online availability of regulatory documents, safety information and adverse drug reaction reporting in African countries. Drug Saf. 2018;41:1162 (abstract ISoP18-1161).
Castillon G, Gesztesi Z, Moride Y. Product confusion errors: a pharmacovigilance analysis of VigibaseTM and Canada Vigilance case narratives. Drug Saf. 2018;41:1149 (abstract ISoP18-1132).
Lebanova HV, Staynova R, Getova V. Pharmacists’ role in risk communication on self-medication: pilot study from Bulgaria. Drug Saf. 2018;41:1186 (abstract ISoP18-1227).
Attjioui H, Boutayeb S, Errihani H, Aliat Z, Soulaymani R, Tebaa A, Meddah B. Role of patient information on the adverse effects of medicines in oncology. Drug Saf. 2018;41:1244 (abstract ISoP18-1439).
Hartigan-Go KY, Larson H. What is risky about risk communications: a case study on dengue vaccine. Drug Saf. 2018;41:1199 (abstract ISoP18-1276).
Hugman BPJ. Amusing ourselves to death: how science and reason are losing their grip in public discourse. Drug Saf. 2018;41:1159 (abstract ISoP18-1154).
Hoegberg A. Social media: the battleground for public opinion on medicines safety. Drug Saf. 2018;41:1163 (abstract ISoP18-1165).
Soulaymani R, Sefiani H, Benabdallah G, Tebaa A. Promoting spontaneous adverse event reporting in Morocco: the national reporting day. Drug Saf. 2019;42:1233 (abstract 54).
Shah A, Corrado A, Mingle E, O’Shea L, Wagman L, Di Menno R, Mockute R, Beauchamp S, Freeman J, Abatemarco D. Communicating the value of pharmacovigilance, above and beyond compliance. Drug Saf. 2019;42:1216 (abstract 21).
Forstner M. digital tools for the communication of risk minimization measures for medicines. Drug Saf. 2019;42:1220 (abstract 29).
Chan-Liston ML, Mai DLH, Bourke J, McWilliams R, Berry T, Sheehan P, Freeman J. Evolution of communication plan REMS programs. Drug Saf. 2019;42:1227 (abstract 41).
Adjaude S, Varallo F, Pererira L, Lopes J. Use of social media in pharmacovigilance for patient empowerment and spontaneous reporting: a systematic review. Drug Saf. 2019;42:1234 (abstract 56).
CarvalhoI D, Consani de Siqueira B, Rafaini Lloret G, Miguez de Almeida I. Identification of communication opportunities in the report process of adverse reactions. Drug Saf. 2019;42:1235 (abstract 58).
Duarte A, Roque F, Roque V, Herdeiro M. How Portuguese users of social media communicate with pharmacovigilance unit Facebook pages? Drug Saf. 2019;42:1241 (abstract 70).
Convertino I, Leonardi L, Tuccori M, Ferraro S, Blandizzi C. Listening social media for pharmacovigilance objectives: which usefulness? Drug Saf. 2019;42:1245 (abstract 78).
Saavedra Espitia AJ, Ospina FL. Patients’ knowledge of ADR and its notification in Colombia: a quantitative study. Drug Saf. 2019;42:1254 (abstract 93).
Acknowledgements
This article is dedicated to the memory of Prof. Giampaolo Velo, a visionary of communication in pharmacovigilance, who initiated and sustained the Erice statements. Priya Bahri, Geoffrey Bowring, Brian D. Edwards, Giovanni Furla, Katarina Ilic and Peter G. Mol are members of the ISoP CommSIG. The whole CommSIG was consulted on the draft manuscript. The authors thank Lisa Phillips for her comments in the early drafting phase, provided as a previous member of the ISoP CommSIG. The authors also thank Ulrich Hagemann and Alexander N. Dodoo, both ISoP CommSIG members, for their contributions to the sessions sponsored by the ISoP CommSIG at some ISoP annual meetings as Chair and/or Discussion Lead.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
No sources of funding were used in the preparation of this article.
Conflict of interest
The views expressed in this report are the authors’ personal views and may not be understood or quoted as being made on behalf of or reflecting the position of the employing organisations. Priya Bahri’s activity as the ISoP CommSIG Coordinator is pro bono in her personal capacity and time, outside the working hours of the European Medicines Agency as her employing organisation. She abstains from contributing to ISoP comments in response to public consultations of EU policies and projects.
Priya Bahri, Geoffrey Bowring, Brian D. Edwards, Angela Caro-Rojas, Bruce P.J. Hugman, Peter G. Mol, Katarina Ilic, Riadh Daghfous, Irene Fermont, Wolfgang Gaissmaier, Mohammad Ishaq Geer, François Houÿez, Hansjörg Neth, Gediminas Norgela, Yaowares Oppamayun, Mehdi Bouhlel, Federica Santoro and Janet Sultana have no conflicts of interests to declare. Christopher Anton receives an annual grant from the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and owns shares in AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, BioNTech, Smith and Nephew, and Advanced Oncotherapy. Jeffrey K. Aronson has written articles and edited textbooks and has given medicolegal advice about adverse drug reactions. Giovanni Furlan is an employee of Pfizer s.r.l. and owns stocks in Pfizer, as well as other pharmaceutical companies through exchange traded funds. Kenneth Hartigan-Go declares that since 2018 he has been a respondent in legal cases in the Philippines involving the vaccine product Dengvaxia. D.K. Theo Raynor is co-founder and academic advisor to Luto Research, which was a spinout company of the University of Leeds, and develops, refines and tests health information; he is also co-chair of the Patient Safety Communication Advisory Panel at Bayer AG, Berlin. Gianluca Trifirò attended seminars and advisory boards funded by pharmaceutical companies on topics not related to the contents of this article, as head of a pharmacoepidemiological team at the University of Messina (until October 2020), and now of the academic spinoff INSPIRE, coordinated some observational studies and a Master’s programme, which received unconditional grants from several pharmaceutical companies; in addition, he participated in advisory boards that have been sponsored by several pharmaceutical companies; all these activities are not related to the topic of this article.
Ethics approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable (as this is not a study report).
Consent for publication
Not applicable (as this is not a study report).
Availability of data and materials
The article is based on presentations at the ISoP events and other referenced materials, as well as personal notes taken by Priya Bahri and Ulrich Hagemann during the referenced sessions and meetings.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Authors’ contributions
The data and materials for this article were compiled by PB as the ISoP CommSIG Coordinator, and the article was drafted by PB and GB. Contributions to the content were made as follows: CA, JKA, PB, AC-R, BDE, IF, MIG, FH, BPJH, PGM, HN, YO and DKR as leads and presenters of referenced abstracts/oral presentations for sessions on risk communication during ISoP annual meetings underpinned by slides and/or scripts; MB, FS and JS as leads of referenced abstracts for sessions on risk communication during ISoP annual meetings; RD, GN and GT as abstract co-authors and presenters for sessions on risk communication during ISoP annual meetings, as referenced; PB, BDE and KI as session chairs for sessions on risk communication during ISoP annual meetings, as referenced; GB and PB through reviewing and selecting the poster abstracts for Appendix 2; WG as an additional expert who provided draft text for the article; and CA, JKA, AC-R, BDE, GF, KYH, BPJH, KI, PGM and GT through comments on the draft article. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of this article.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Bahri, P., Bowring, G., Edwards, B.D. et al. Communicating for the Safe Use of Medicines: Progress and Directions for the 2020s Promoted by the Special Interest Group of the International Society of Pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf 46, 517–532 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-023-01285-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-023-01285-5