Impact of Benefit Messages in Patient Package Inserts on Subjective Drug Perception

  • R. H. Vander SticheleEmail author
  • A. Vandierendonck
  • G. De Vooght
  • B. Reynvoet
  • J. Lammertyn



To explore the impact of the inclusion of a benefit message in a patient package insert on knowledge about medicines and on subjective benefit/risk perception.


Female members of community social organizations, female relatives of psychology students, and caregivers to psychotic patients.

Nature of the study

Randomized, controlled healthy human volunteer study with three parallel experiments, involving the inserts of cisapride, itraconazol, and risperidon.


Subjects were recruited in a convenience sample and randomized to one control and two intervention groups (one with a normal insert and one with an insert with a benefit message). Material and methods: Subjects were asked to read the inserts (using mock text in the control group) in 5 to 15 minutes. Knowledge of the medication was tested with 20 simple questions (to be answered Yes/No/Don’t know) and benefit/risk perception with a five-point bipolar Likert scale. Results: In the three experiments respectively 89, 102, and 83 subjects were recruited. The provision of inserts increased the knowledge about medication in all the intervention groups. Thirty-one percent, 41%, and 54% of the subjects who read a normal insert agreed that the benefit of the medicine was greater than its risks, compared to 62%, 64%, and 70% of subjects who read an insert with a benefit message included (P < 0.05 in all 3 experiments). Discussion: A hypothesis for further research is formulated: adding a section on benefit information within a patient package insert helps to integrate increased knowledge about medication into a more balanced benefit/risk perception.

Key Words

Drug labeling Attitude toward health Risk Cognition Pharmaceutical preparations 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Council Directive 92/27/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the labelling of medicinal products for human use and on package leaflets. Brussels, Belgium: European Union; OJ No L 113/8, April 30, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kenny T, Wilson RG, Purves IN, Clark J, Newton LD, Newton DP, Moseley DV. A PIL for every ill? Patient information leaflets (PILs): a review of past, present and future use. Fam Pract. 1998;15:471–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vander Stichele RH, Bogaert MG. European legislation and research projects regarding patient education for medication. Drug Inf J. 1995;29:285–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morris LA. The FDA approach to patient package inserts: the four phases of PPIs. In: Bogaert MG, Vander Stichele RH, Kaufman JM, Lefebvre R, eds. Patient Package Inserts as a Source of Information. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers; 1989:59–66.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morris LA, Tabak ER, Gondek K. Counseling patients about prescribed medication: 12-year trends. Med Care. 1997;35:996–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vander Stichele RH, Van haecht CH, Braem MD, Bogaert MG. Attitude of the public toward technical package inserts for medication information in Belgium. DICP. 1991;25:1002–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nightingale SL. Written patient information on prescription drugs. The evolution of government and voluntary programs in the United States. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1995;11:399–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vander Stichele RH. Promises of a measurement breakthrough. In: Métry JM, Meyer UA, eds. Drug Regimen Compliance. Issues in Clinical Trials and Patient Management. New York, NY: Wiley; 1999:71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leventhal H. The role of theory in the study of adherence to treatment and doctor-patient interactions. Med Care. 1985;23:556–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Slovic P. The Perception of Risk. London; Earthscan: 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alhakami AS, Slovic P. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Anal. 1994;14:1085–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gibbs S, Waters WE, George CF. Prescription information leaflets: a national survey. J Roy Soc Med. 1990;83:292–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rupf RE. Evaluation of Patient-oriented Drug Information: Package Leaflets as Viewed by the Patient and their Impact on Outpatients’ Behavior During Treatment. Doctoral thesis. University of Basel: Basel, Switzerland; 1991.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Peveler R, George C, Kinmonth AL, Campbell M, Thompson C. Effect of antidepressant drug counselling and information leaflets on adherence to drug treatment in primary care: randomised controlled trial. Br Med J. 1999;319:612–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Perkins DO. Adherence to antipsychotic medications. J Clin Psychiatry. 1999;60(Suppl. 21):25–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    “Current Status of Useful Written Prescription Drug Information for Patients. Summary of FDA Public Workshop, held February 29-March 1, 2000, Rockville, MD, USA.”
  17. 17.
    Viscusi WK. Efficacy of labeling of foods and pharmaceuticals. Annu Rev Public Health. 1994;15:325–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shenfield GM, Tasker JL. History in the making: the evolution of consumer product information (CPI). Med J Aust. 1997;166:425–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Amery WK. Coming full circle in pharmacovigilance: Communicating safety information to patients through patient package inserts. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety. 1999;8:121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Drug Information Association, Inc 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. H. Vander Stichele
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. Vandierendonck
    • 2
  • G. De Vooght
    • 2
  • B. Reynvoet
    • 2
  • J. Lammertyn
    • 2
  1. 1.Heymans Institute of PharmacologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Experimental PsychologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations