Advertisement

The Social Sciences

Chapter

Abstract

Research methods commonly used in social sciences are appropriate for studies of how people deal with “risk” and for studies of risk communication. These approaches can be applied to understanding and appraising risk communications about medicines. This chapter reviews appropriateness and potential of social science research methods for this purpose, focusing on:
  • qualitative studies (e.g. of experiences of a risk communication, or to create a theoretical conceptualisation or model of a risk communication);

  • surveys for studying prevalence (e.g. of health behaviours or attitudes) and correlations (e.g. between communication types and health behaviours);

  • (quasi-)experimental studies and intervention trials (for measuring effects of planned risk communication interventions); and

  • mixed-method studies (combining features of the above designs).

The chapter explains the main features of these methods; discusses their strengths and limitations; considers examples; and makes suggestions for applying the methods effectively to improve the evidence base on risk communication about medicines. The chapter emphasises the distinctly different types of research question that are appropriate for each of these research designs.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of Mrs. Joanne Knox and Miss Janice McQuilkin, Assistant Subject Librarians; Dr. Patricia Carlisle, Associate Lecturer; and Miss Mabel Stevenson, Research Assistant, all of Ulster University, Northern Ireland, who assisted with the literature review that underpins this chapter.

References1

  1. Akl EA, Oxman AD, Herrin J, Vist GE, Terrenato I, Sperati F, Costiniuk C, Blank D, Schünemann H (2011) Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD006776.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006776.pub2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altman DG (1991) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. ∗Andreas DC, Abraham NS, Naik AD, Street RL Jr, Sharf BF (2010) Understanding risk communication through patient narratives about complex antithrombotic therapies. Qual Health Res 20(8):1155–1165.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732310370154
  4. Auspurg K, Hinz T (2014) Factorial survey experiments. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Australian Council for International Development (2016) Principles and guidelines for ethical research and evaluation in development. ACFID, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  6. Bahri P (2010) Public pharmacovigilance communication: a process calling for evidence-based, objective-driven strategies. Drug Saf 33(12):1065–1079.  https://doi.org/10.2165/11539040-000000000-00000CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bahri P, Fogd J, Morales D, Kurz X, ADVANCE Consortium (2017) Application of real-time global media monitoring and ‘derived questions’ for enhancing communication by regulatory bodies: the case of human papillomavirus vaccines. BMC Med 15:91.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0850-4
  8. Bailar JC, Louis TA, Lavori PW, Polansky M (1986) A classification for biomedical research reports. N Engl J Med 311:1482–1487.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198412063112305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bates J, Best P, McQuilkin J, Taylor BJ (2017) Will web search engines replace bibliographic databases in the systematic identification of research? J Acad Libr 43(1):8–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.11.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ∗Belcora JK, Hutton DW, Moore DH, Siminoff LA (2011) Does use of the ‘adjuvant!’ Model influence use of adjuvant therapy through better risk communication? J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 9:707–712.  https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2011.0061
  11. ∗Berry DC, Knapp PR, Raynor T (2002) Is 15 per cent very common? Informing people about the risks of medication side effects. Int J Pharm Pract 10:145–151.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-7174.2002.tb00602.x
  12. Best P, Taylor BJ, Manktelow R, McQuilkin J (2014) Systematically retrieving research in the digital age: case study on the topic of social networking sites and young people’s mental health. J Inf Sci 40:346–356.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551514521936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bickman L, Rog DJ (eds) (2008) The sage handbook of applied social research methods, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  14. Bilgin B, Brenner L (2013) Context affects the interpretation of low but not high numerical probabilities: a hypothesis-testing account of subjective probability. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 121:118–128.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.01.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bland M (2015) An introduction to medical statistics, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Blomgren KJ, Sundström A, Steineck G, Wilholm BE (2006) Interviewer variability: quality aspects in a case-control study. Eur J Epidemiol 21(4):267–277.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-006-0017-7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Bors D (2018) Data analysis for the social sciences: integrating theory and practice. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Brewer J (2000) Ethnography. Open University, BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  19. ∗Brewer NT, Tzeng JP, Lillie SE, Edwards AS, Peppercorn JM, Rimer BK (2009) Health literacy and cancer risk perception: implications for genomic risk communication. Med Decis Mak 29(2):157–166.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X08327111
  20. Bryman A (2016) Social research methods, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Butcher RB, Fechtelpeter D, Knelangen M, Ehrlichg M, Waltering A (2014) Words or numbers? Communicating risk of adverse effects in written consumer health information: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 14:76–87.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-14-76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Campbell A, Taylor BJ, McGlade A (2016) Research design in social work: qualitative and quantitative methods. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Carson D, Bain A (2008) Professional risk and working with people: decision-making in health, social care and criminal justice. Jessica Kingsley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) (2009) Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care, 3rd edn. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. www.york.ac.uk/crd/
  25. Charmaz K (2014) Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis, 2nd edn. Sage, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Coggon D, Barker DJP, Rose G (2003) Epidemiology for the uninitiated, 5th edn. British Medical Journal, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Council of the European Communities (1992) Council Directive 92/27/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the labelling of medicinal products for human use and on package leaflets. (Extended to the EEA by 21994D0628(01) SYN 231). Brussels: Official JournalGoogle Scholar
  28. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M (2008) Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 337:a1655.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1655CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Cresswell JW, Plano VL (2010) Designing and conducting mixed methods research, 2nd edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) (1998) CASP checklists. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, Oxford. http://www.casp-uk.net. Accessed 22 June 2017
  31. Datta J, Petticrew M (2013) Challenges to evaluating complex interventions: a content analysis of published papers. BMC Public Health 13:568.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-568CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. ∗Davis JJ (2007) Consumers’ preferences for the communication of risk information in drug advertising. Health Aff 26(3):863–870.  https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.26.3.863
  33. ∗Davis TC, Fredrickson DD, Kennen EM, Humiston SG, Arnold CL, Quinlin MS, Bocchini JA (2006) Vaccine risk/benefit communication: effect of an educational package for public health nurses. Health Educ Behav 33:787–801.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-1209.2004.021305.x
  34. ∗Davis JJ, Cross E, Crowley J (2007) Pharmaceutical websites and the communication of risk. J Health Commun 12(1):29–39.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730601091326
  35. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Inspector General (2013) FDA lacks comprehensive data to determine whether risk evaluation and mitigation strategies improve drug safety. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, Washington. https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-04-11-00510.pdf. Accessed 22 Jan 2018
  36. Dodoo A, Hugman B (2012) Risk perception and communication in sub-Saharan Africa. Drug Saf 35(11):1041–1052.  https://doi.org/10.2165/11636270-000000000-00000CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Dusetzina SB, Higashi AS, Dorsey ER, Conti R, Huskamp HA, Zhu S, Garfield CF, Alexander GC (2012) Impact of FDA drug risk communications on healthcare utilization and health behaviors: a systematic review. Med Care 50(6):466–478.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e318245a160CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Economic and Social Research Council (2016) What is social science? Economic and Social Research Council, London. http://www.esrc.ac.uk/about-us/what-is-social-science/
  39. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Covey J, Matthews E, Pill R (2001) Presenting risk information a review of the effects of framing and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J Health Commun 6:61–82.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730150501413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Edwards AGK, Naik G, Ahmed H, Elwyn GJ, Pickles T, Hood K, Playle R (2013) Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD001865.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001865.pub3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Elliot R, Fisher CT, Rennie DL (1999) Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology & related fields. Br J Clin Psychol. 38:215–219 [Erratum: Br J Clin Psychol. 2000;39:1:10]Google Scholar
  42. Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Kinnersley P, Cording E, Tomson D, Dodd C, Rollnick S, Edwards A, Barry M (2012) Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med 27(10):1361–1367.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2077-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Engel RJ, Schutt RK (2013) The practice of research in social work, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  44. European Medicines Agency (2012) Guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices (GVP). Module V—risk management systems (rev 1). European Medicines Agency, London. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2012/06/WC500129134.pdf. Accessed 24 Jan 2018
  45. European Medicines Agency (2013) Guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices (GVP). Module XVI—risk minimisation measures: selection of tools and effectiveness indicators. European Medicines Agency, London. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2013/06/WC500144010.pdf. Accessed 24 Jan 2018
  46. European Medicines Agency (2017a) Guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices (GVP): annex I – definitions (rev 4). EMA/876333/2011 Rev 4∗. European Medicines Agency, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. European Medicines Agency (2017b) Guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices (GVP): module XVI: risk minimisation measures: selection of tools and effectiveness indicators (rev 2). European Medicines Agency, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. European Medicines Agency (2017c) Guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices (GVP): module VIII: post-authorisation safety studies (rev 3). [EMA/813938/2011 Rev 3∗]. European Medicines Agency, London 2017Google Scholar
  49. European Medicines Agency Benefit-risk Methodology Project Team (2011) Work package 1 report: description of the current practice of benefit-risk assessment for centralised procedure products in the EU regulatory network: EMA/227124/2011. European Medicines Agency, LondonGoogle Scholar
  50. European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP) (2018) Guide on methodological standards in pharmacoepidemiology (revision 7). EMA/95098/2010. European Medicines Agency, LondonGoogle Scholar
  51. Eysenbach G (2004) Improving the quality of web surveys: the checklist for reporting results of internet e-surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res 6(3):e34.  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34 [Erratum: J Med Internet Res. 2012; 14(1): e8.  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2042]
  52. Feynman RP (1999) The pleasure of finding things out. Helix (Perseus), CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  53. Fischoff B, Brewer NT, Downs JS (eds) (2011) Communicating risks and benefits: an evidence-based users’ guide. Food and Drugs Administration, Silver SpringGoogle Scholar
  54. Food and Drug Administration (2005) Guidance for industry: development and use of risk minimization action plans. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM126830.pdf. Accessed 24 Jan 2018
  55. Food and Drug Administration (2009) Guidance for industry: format and content of proposed risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS), REMS assessments, and proposed REMS modifications draft guidance 2009. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM184128.pdf. Accessed 22 Jan 2018
  56. Fry RB, Ray MN, Cobaugh DJ, Weissman NW, Kiefe CI, Shewchuk RM, Saag KG, Curtis JR, Allison JJ (2007) Racial/ethnic disparities in patient-reported nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) risk awareness, patient-doctor NSAID risk communication, and NSAID risk behavior. Arthritis Rheum 57(8):1539–1545.  https://doi.org/10.1002/art.23084CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Fugard AJB, Potts HWW (2015) Supporting thinking on sample sizes for thematic analyses: a quantitative tool. Int J Soc Res Methodol 18:669–684.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1005453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. ∗Gaissmaier W, Anderson BL, Schulkin J (2014) How do physicians provide statistical information about antidepressants to hypothetical patients? Med Decis Mak 34:206–215.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X13501720
  59. Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S (2013) Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol 13:117.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-117CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. Galesic M, Gigerenzer G, Straubinger N (2009) Natural frequencies help older adults and people with low numeracy to evaluate medical screening tests. Med Decis Mak 29:368–371.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X08329463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Gee JP (2005) An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  62. Gellin BG, Maibach EW, Marcuse EK (2000) Do parents understand immunizations? A national telephone survey. Pediatrics 106(5):1097–1102.  https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.106.5.109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Gigerenzer G, Edwards A (2003) Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ 327(7417):741–744.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7417.741CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Glaser B, Strauss A (1999) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  65. Goedecke T, Morales D, Pacurariu A, Kurz X (2018) Measuring the impact of medicines regulatory interventions: systematic review and methodological considerations. Br J Clin Pharmacol 84(3):419–433.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.13469CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Granger MM, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ (2001) Risk communication: a mental models approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  67. Greenhalgh T (2014) How to read a paper: the basics of evidence-based medicine, 5th edn. Wiley and BMJ Books, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  68. Gridchyna I, Cloutier AM, Nkeng L, Craig C, Frise S, Moride Y (2014) Methodological gaps in the assessment of risk minimization interventions: a systematic review. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 23(6):572–579.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.3596CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Gumucio S (2011) Data collection: quantitative methods: the KAP survey model (Knowledge, Attitude & Practices). Médecins du Monde, ParisGoogle Scholar
  70. ∗Han PKJ, Joekes K, Elwyn G, Mazor KM, Thomson R, Sedgwick P, Ibison J, Wong JB (2014) Development and evaluation of a risk communication curriculum for medical students. Patient Educ Couns 94:43–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.09.009
  71. Hanley B, Bradburn J, Barnes M, Evans C, Goodare H, Kelson M, Kent A, Oliver S, Thomas S, Wallcraft J (2004) Involving the public in National Health Service, public health, and social care research: briefing notes for researchers. INVOLVE Support Unit, LondonGoogle Scholar
  72. Health Research Authority (2016) Defining research. National Health Service, HRA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  73. Heins H (1976) A KAP (knowledge-attitude-practice) approach to the regionalization of perinatal health. J Ark Med Soc 73(6):229–234PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Hertwig R, Erev I (2009) The description-experience gap in risky choice. Trends Cogn Sci 13:517–523.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.09.004CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane CollaborationGoogle Scholar
  76. Hill AB (1965) The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc R Soc Med 58(5):295–300PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. Hinneburg J, Ellermann C (2016) Antibiotics for acute middle ear infection in children: fact box. Harding Centre for Risk Literacy at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin. https://www.harding-center.mpg.de/en/fact-boxes/use-of-antibiotics/acute-middle-ear-infection. Accessed 24 Jan 2018
  78. ∗Hutton DW, Belkora JK, Shachter RD, Moore DH (2009) Are patients getting the ‘gist’ in risk communication? Patient understanding of prognosis in breast cancer. J Cancer Educ 24:194–199.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08858190902876452
  79. ∗Ilic D, Murphy K, Green S (2012) Risk communication and prostate cancer: identifying which summary statistics are best understood by men. Am J Mens Health 6(6):497–504.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988312453616
  80. INVOLVE (2012) Briefing notes for researchers: public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. National Institute for Health Research, LondonGoogle Scholar
  81. INVOLVE (2013) Exploring the impact of public involvement on the quality of research: examples. National Institute for Health Research, LondonGoogle Scholar
  82. Juanchich M, Sirota M (2013) Do people really say it is “likely” when they believe it is only “possible”? Effect of politeness on risk communication. Q J Exp Psychol 66:1268–1275.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.804582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Kalet A, Roberts JC, Fletcher R (1994) How do physicians talk with their patients about risks? J Gen Intern Med 9:402–404.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02629523CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. ∗Keller C, Siegrist M (2009) Effect of risk communication formats on risk perception depending on numeracy. Med Decis Mak 29(4):483–490.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X09333122
  85. ∗Kennedy A, Glasser J, Covello V, Gust D (2008) Development of vaccine risk communication messages using risk comparisons and mathematical modelling. J Health Commun 13:793–807.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730802487463
  86. Killick C, Taylor BJ (2012) Judgments of social care professionals on elder abuse referrals: a factorial survey. Br J Soc Work 42:814–832.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcr109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. ∗Kirkegaard P, Edwards AGK, Hansen B, Hansen MD, Jensen MSA, Lauritzen T, Risoer MGB, Thomsen JL (2010) The RISAP-study: a complex intervention in risk communication and shared decision-making in general practice. BMC Fam Pract 11:70.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-11-70
  88. Kuper A, Lingard L, Levinson W (2008) Critically appraising qualitative research. BMJ 337:a1035.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1035CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. ∗Langlois-Klassen D, Kipp W, Rubaale T (2008) Who’s talking? Communication between health providers and HIV-infected adults related to herbal medicine for AIDS treatment in western Uganda. Soc Sci Med 67(1):165–176.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.02.027
  90. ∗Längst G, Seidling HM, Stützle M, Ose D, Baudendistel I, Szecsenyi J, Wensing M, Mahler C (2015) Factors associated with medication information in diabetes care: differences in perceptions between patients and health care professionals. Patient Prefer Adherence 15:1431–1441.  https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S88357
  91. Leong J, Walker S, Salek S (2015) A practical approach to communicating benefit-risk decisions of medicines to stakeholders. Front Pharmacol 6:99.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2015.00099CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  92. Lipkus IM, Hollands JG (1999) The visual communication of risk. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 25:149–163.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jncimonographs.a024191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Löwenstein GF, Weber EY, Hsee CK, Welch N (2001) Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull 127(2):267–286.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. ∗Makoul G, Arntson P, Schofield T (1995) Health promotion in primary care: physician-patient communication and decision making about prescription medications. Soc Sci Med 41(9):1241–1254.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00061-B
  95. Malterud K (2001) Qualitative research: standards, challenges and guidelines. Lancet 358:483–488.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05627-6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Malterud K, Siersma VD, Goassora AD (2015) Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res 26(13):1753–1760.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Mayall S, Banerjee AK (2014) Therapeutic risk management of medicines. Woodhead (Elsevier), CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  98. Mays N, Pope C (2000) Qualitative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 320:50–52.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  99. Mazzaglia G, Straus SMJ, Arlett P, da Silva D, Janssen H, Raine J, Alteri E (2018) Study design and evaluation of risk minimization measures: a review of studies submitted to the European Medicines Agency for cardiovascular, endocrinology, and metabolic drugs. Drug Saf 41(2):191–202.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-017-0604-4CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. McColl E, Jacoby A, Thomas L, Scoutter J, Bamford C, Steen N, Thomas R, Harvey E, Garratt A, Bond J (2001) Design and use of questionnaires: a review of best practice applicable to surveys of health service staff and patients. Health Technol Assess 5:31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. McComas KA (2006) Defining moments in risk communication research: 1996–2005. J Health Commun 11(1):75–91.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730500461091CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. McDowell M (2009) Making sense of numbers about health risks: the Facts Box (Chapter 19). In: Elwyn G, Edwards A, Thompson R (eds) Shared decision making in health care: achieving evidence-based patient choice, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 123–128Google Scholar
  103. McFadden P, Taylor BJ, Campbell A, McQuilkin J (2012) Systematically identifying relevant research: case study on child protection social workers’ resilience. Res Soc Work Pract. 22:626–636.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731512453209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. McGinn AH, Taylor BJ, McColgan M, McQuilkin J (2016) Social work literature searching: current issues with databases and online search engines. Res Soc Work Pract 26(3):266–277.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731514549423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Medical Research Council (2008) Developing and evaluating complex interventions. MRC, London. http://www.mrc.ac.uk/documents/pdf/complex-interventions-guidance/
  106. Mevissen FDF, Ruiter RAC, Meertens RM, Zimbile F, Schaalma HP (2011) Justify your love: testing an online STI-risk communication intervention designed to promote condom use and STI-testing. Psychol Health 26:205–221.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2011.531575CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. Montgomery P, Grant SP, Hopewell S, Macdonald G, Moher D, Michie S, Mayo-Wilson E (2013) Protocol for CONSORT-SPI: an extension for social and psychological interventions. Implement Sci 8(1):99.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-99CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  108. Mooney-Somers J, Olsen A (2017) Ethical review and qualitative research competence: guidance for reviewers and applicants. Res Ethics (3–4):128–138Google Scholar
  109. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, Moore L, O’Cathain A, Tinati T, Wight D, Baird J (2015a) Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 350:h1258.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h1258CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  110. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, Moore L, O’Cathain A, Tinati T, Wight D, Baird J (2015b) Process evaluation of complex interventions: a summary of Medical Research Council guidance. In: Richards DA, Hallberg IR (eds) Complex interventions in health: an overview of research methods. Routledge, Oxford, pp 222–231Google Scholar
  111. Moorhead SA, Coates VE, Gallagher AM, Nolan G, Murphy K, Hazlett DE (2013a) Obesity communication among patients by health professionals: findings from the Weight Care Project. Health 5(8A3):100–109.  https://doi.org/10.4236/health.2013.58A3015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Moorhead SA, Hazlett DE, Harrison L, Carroll JK, Irwin A, Hoving C (2013b) A new dimension of health care: systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. J Med Internet Res 15(4):e85.  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1933CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  113. Morse JM (2015) Data were saturated. Qual Health Res 25:587–588.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315576699CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. Nelson W, Reyna VF, Fagerlin A, Lipkus I, Peters E (2008) Clinical implications of numeracy: theory and practice. Ann Intern Med 35:261–274.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-008-9037-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. ∗Newman PA, Seiden DS, Roberts KJ, Kakinami L, Duan N (2009) A small dose of HIV? HIV vaccine mental models and risk communication. Health Educ Behav 36(2):321–333.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198107305078
  116. O’Connor AM, Legare F, Stacey D (2003) Risk communication in practice: the contribution of decision aids. BMJ 327(7417):736–740.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7417.736CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  117. ∗Omedo M, Ogutu M, Awiti A, Musuva R, Muchiri G, Montgomery SP, Secor WE, Miwinzi P (2014) The effect of a health communication campaign on compliance with mass drug administration for schistosomiasis control in Western Kenya: The SCORE Project. Am J Trop Med Hyg 91(5):982.  https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.14-0136
  118. Peters E (2008) Numeracy and the perception and communication of risk. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1128:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1399.001CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. Petticrew M (2011) When are complex interventions ‘complex’? When are simple interventions ‘simple’? Eur J Pub Health 21:397–398.  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckr084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Petticrew M, Roberts H (2003) Evidence, hierarchies, and typologies: horses for courses. J Epidemiol Community Health 57:527–529.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.57.7.527CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  121. Petticrew M, Rehfuess E, Noyes J, Higgins JPT, Mayhew A, Pantoha T, Shemilt I, Sowden A (2013a) Synthesising evidence on complex interventions: how meta-analytic, qualitative and mixed-methods approaches can contribute. J Clin Epidemiol 66:1230–1243.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.06.005CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. Petticrew M, Anderson L, Elder R, Grimshaw J, Hopkins D, Hahn R, Krause L, Kristjansson E, Mercer S, Sipe T, Tugwell P, Ueffing E, Waters E, Welch V (2013b) Complex interventions and their implications for systematic reviews: a pragmatic approach. J Clin Epidemiol 66:1209–1214.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.06.004CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. Pluye P, Gagnon MP, Griffiths F, Johnson-Lafleur J (2009) A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies in mixed studies reviews. Int J Nurs Stud 46(4):529–546.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.01.009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. Presser S (ed) (2004) Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  125. Price-Haywood EG, Roth KG, Shelby K, Cooper LA (2009) Cancer risk communication with low health literacy patients: a continuing medical education program. J Gen Intern Med 25(Suppl 2):126–129.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-009-1211-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Raynor DK, de Veene P, Bryant D (2013) The effectiveness of the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) and recommendations for improvement. Ther Innov Regul Sci 48:255–265.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479013501311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. ∗Reber KC, Wieringa JE, Piening S, De Graeff PA,Haaijer-Ruskamp F, Mol PGM, Straus SMJM, Raine JM (2013) When direct health-care professional communications have an impact on inappropriate and unsafe use of medicines. Clin Pharmacol Ther 93(4):360–365.  https://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.2012.262
  128. Reeves S, Albert M, Kuper A, Hodges BD (2008) Qualitative research: why use theories in qualitative research? BMJ 337(7226):631–634.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Reyna VF, Adam MB (2003) Fuzzy-trace theory, risk communication and product labelling in sexually transmitted diseases. Risk Anal 23:325–342.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00332CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. Reyna VF, Nelson WL, Han PK, Dieckmann NF (2009) How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol Bull 135:943–973.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017327CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  131. Ritchie J, Lewis J (2006) Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  132. Ryan R, Santesso N, Lowe D, Hill S, Grimshaw J, Prictor M, Kaufman C, Cowie G, Taylor M (2014) Interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers: an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD007768.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007768.pub3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Sanchez-Menegay C, Stadler H (1994) Do physicians take into account patients’ expectations? J Gen Intern Med 9(7):404–406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Santiago-Delefosse M, Gavin A, Bruchez C, Roux P, Stephen SL (2016) Quality of qualitative research in the health sciences: analysis of the common criteria present in 58 assessment guidelines by expert users. Soc Sci Med 148:142–151.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.007CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. ∗Schapira MM, Nattinger AB, McAuliffe TL (2006) The influence of graphic format on breast cancer risk communication. J Health Commun 11(6):569–582.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730600829916
  136. Schmid EF, Smith DA, Ryder SW (2007) Communicating the risks and benefits of medicines. Drug Discov Today 12:355–364.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2007.03.003CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  137. Schüz N, Schüz B, Eid M (2013) When risk communication backfires: randomised controlled trial on self-affirmation and reactance to personalised risk feedback in high-risk individuals. Health Psychol 32:561–570.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029887CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  138. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG (2009) Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med 150:516–527.  https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-150-8-200904210-00106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  139. Smith MY, Morrato E (2014) Advancing the field of pharmaceutical risk minimization through application of implementation science best practices. Drug Saf 37(7):569–580.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-014-0197-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  140. Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M (2009) Interpretative phenomenological analysis: theory, method and research. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  141. Smith MY, Russell A, Bahri P, Mol PGM, Frise S, Freeman E, Morrato EH (2018) The RIMES statement: a checklist to assess the quality of studies evaluating risk minimization programs for medicinal products. Drug Saf 41:389–401.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-017-0619-xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  142. Sobel R (2016) Evaluating the effectiveness of additional risk minimisation measures via surveys in Europe: challenges and recommendations. Bethesda, International Society for PharmacoepidemiologyGoogle Scholar
  143. Spencer L, Ritchie J, Lewis J, Dillon L (2003) Quality in qualitative evaluation: a framework for assessing research evidence. Cabinet Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  144. Starks H, Trinidad SB (2007) Choose your method: a comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qual Health Res 17:1372–1380.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732307307031CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  145. Stevenson M, Taylor BJ (2016) Risk communication in dementia care: family perspectives. J Risk Res 21(6):692–709.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1235604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Stevenson M, Taylor BJ (2017) Risk communication in dementia care: professional perspectives on consequences, likelihood, words and numbers. Br J Soc Work 47(7):1940–1958.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcw161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Stevenson M, Taylor BJ (2019 Feb) Involving individuals with dementia as co-researchers in analysis of findings from a qualitative study. Dementia (London) 18(2):701–712.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301217690904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Stevenson M, Taylor BJ, Knox J (2016) Risk in dementia care: searching for the evidence. Health Risk Soc 18(1–2):4–20.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2015.1119256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Stevenson M, McDowell ME, Taylor BJ (2018) Concepts for communication about risk in dementia care: a review of the literature. Dementia (London) 17(3):359–390.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301216647542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Stevenson M, Savage B, Taylor BJ (2019) Perception and communication of risk in decision making by persons with a dementia. Dementia (London) 18:1108–1127.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301217704119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Taylor BJ (2006a) Risk management paradigms in health and social services for professional decision making on the long-term care of older people. Br J Soc Work. 36:1411–1429.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Taylor BJ (2006b) Factorial surveys: using vignettes to study professional judgement. Br J Soc Work 36:1187–1207.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Taylor BJ (2012a) Developing an integrated assessment tool for the health and social care of older people. Br J Soc Work 42:1293–1314.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcr133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Taylor BJ (2012b) Intervention research (Chapter 27). In: Gray M, Midgley J, Webb S (eds) Social work handbook. Sage, New York, pp 424–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Taylor BJ (2012c) Models for professional judgement in social work. Eur J Soc Work 15:546–562.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2012.702310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Taylor BJ (2017a) Decision making, assessment and risk in social work, 3rd edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  157. Taylor BJ (2017b) Heuristics in professional judgement: a psycho-social rationality model. Br J Soc Work 47(4):1043–1060.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcw084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Taylor BJ, Campbell B (2011) Quality, risk and governance: social workers’ perspectives. Int J Leadership Public Services 7:256–272.  https://doi.org/10.1108/17479881111194152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Taylor BJ, Donnelly M (2006a) Professional perspectives on decision making about the long-term care of older people. Br J Soc Work 36:807–826.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Taylor BJ, Donnelly M (2006b) Risks to home care workers: professional perspectives. Health Risk Soc 8:239–256.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13698570600871695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Taylor BJ, McKeown C (2013) Assessing and managing risk with people with physical disabilities: development of a safety checklist. Health Risk Soc 15:162–175.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2013.764973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Taylor BJ, Zeller RA (2007) Getting robust and valid data on decision policies: the factorial survey. Irish J Psychol 28(1–2):27–42.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03033910.2007.10446246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Taylor BJ, Dempster M, Donnelly M (2003) Hidden gems: systematically searching electronic databases for research publications for social work and social care. Br J Soc Work 33:423–439.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/33.4.423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Taylor BJ, Dempster M, Donnelly M (2007) Grading gems: appraising the quality of research for social work and social care. Br J Soc Work 37:335–354.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Taylor BJ, Killick C, O’Brien M, Begley E, Carter-Anand J (2014) Older people’s conceptualisation of elder abuse and neglect. J Elder Abuse Negl 26(3):223–243.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08946566.2013.795881CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  166. Taylor BJ, Killick C, McGlade A (2015) Understanding and using research in social work. Sage, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Taylor BJ, Killick C, Bertotti T, Enosh G, Gautschi J, Hietamäki J, Sicora A, Whittaker A (2017) European Social Work Research Association SIG to study decisions, assessment and risk. J Evid Inf Soc Work 15(1):82–94.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23761407.2017.1394244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  168. Taylor BJ, Stevenson M, McDowell M (2018) Communicating risk in dementia care: survey of health and social care professionals. Health Soc Care Community 26(2):e291–e303.  https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12519CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  169. Teigen KH, Brun W (1999) The directionality of verbal probability expressions: effects on decisions, predictions and probabilistic reasoning. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 80:155–190.  https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2857CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  170. Thomson R, Edwards A, Grey J (2005) Risk communication in the clinical consultation. Clin Med 5:465–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. ∗Tong V, Raynor DK, Blalock SJ, Aslani P (2015) Consumer interpretation of ramipril and clopidogrel medication risk information: implications for risk communication strategies. Patient Prefer Adherence 9:983–988.  https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S86414
  172. Trevena LJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Edwards A, Gaissmaier W, Galesic M, Han PKJ, King J, Lawson ML, Linder SK, Lipkus I, Ozanne E, Peters E, Timmermans D, Woloshin S (2013) Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 13(Suppl 2):S7.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S7CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  173. Vik P (2014) Regression, ANOVA and the general linear model: a statistics primer. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  174. Visschers VH, Meertens RM, Passchier WW, De Vries NN (2009) Probability information in risk communication: a review of the research literature. Risk Anal 29:267–287.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01137.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  175. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, STROBE Initiative (2008) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 61(4):344–349.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. Waters EA, Weinstein ND, Colditz GA, Emmons K (2006) Formats for improving risk communication in medical tradeoff decisions. J Health Commun 11:167–182.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730500526695CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  177. Wegwarth O, Gaissmaier W, Gigerenzer G (2011) Deceiving numbers: survival rates and their impact on doctors’ risk communication. Med Decis Mak 31(3):386–394.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X10391469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. West SL, Squiers LB, Mccormack L, Southwell BG, Brouwer ES, Ashok M, Lux L, Boudewyns V, O’Donoghue A, Sullivan HW (2013) Communicating quantitative risks and benefits in promotional prescription drug labeling or print advertising. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 22:447–458.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.3416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  179. Witry MJ, Doucette WR (2015) Factors influencing community pharmacists’ likelihood to ask medication monitoring questions: a factorial survey. Res Soc Adm Pharm 11:639–650.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2014.11.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. ∗Young SD, Oppenheimer DM (2006) Different methods of presenting risk information and their influence on medication compliance intentions: results of three studies. Clin Ther 28:129–139.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2006.01.013
  181. ∗Young S, Oppenheimer DM (2009) Effect of communication strategy on personal risk perception and treatment adherence intentions. Psychol Health Med 14(4):430–442.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13548500902890103
  182. Zipkin DMA, Umscheid CA, Keating NL, Allen E, Aung K, Beyth R, Kaatz S, Mann DM, Sussman JB, Korenstein D, Schardt C, Nagi A, Sloane R, Feldstein DA (2014) Evidence-based risk communication: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 161:270–280.  https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-0295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  183. Zolnierek KB, Dimatteo MR (2009) Physician communication and patient adherence to treatment: a meta-analysis. Med Care 47:826–834.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e31819a5accCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ulster UniversityNewtownabbeyUK

Personalised recommendations