Consumer opinions on medicines information and factors affecting its use — an Australian experience

Abstract

Background — Consumer Medicine Information (CMI) is brand‐specific, written drug information produced by pharmaceutical companies and intended for consumers in Australia. The content of CMI is defined in legal regulations. Objectives — This exploratory study investigated: (a) consumers' awareness, perceptions and modes of CMI use, (b) the impact of CMI on consumers, and (c) possible factors affecting CMI use. Methods — Six focus groups (n=57 consumers) were conducted. Discussions were tape‐recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Setting — Metropolitan Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Key findings — Most participants were aware of written information about prescription medications but were unfamiliar with the term “CMI”. Few had experienced a health care professional providing or discussing CMI but most had read it and found it useful. There were many suggestions for improvements to the format and content of CMI to increase its “user‐friendliness”. CMI had caused anxiety in some participants but increased awareness of their medications in others. Several factors appeared to increase the likelihood of CMI use: information‐oriented coping mechanism, severe disease, internal locus of control, appropriate timing of information provision, and care‐giver role. Conversely, difficulty in reading and understanding CMI, confidence in health care professionals and perceived “problem‐free” therapies appeared to reduce CMI use. Conclusions — Although consumers were aware of and read written drug information, there was limited interaction with a health professional when written information was provided.

A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative research on the role and effectiveness of written information available to patients about individual medicines

“…However, the discussion section of the papers implied that some authors judged 'success' as a majority of patients reading the information. Relatively 'lower' levels were reported by Raynor and Knapp (40%) 63 and Bandesha (49%) 55 and high levels by Vander Stichele and colleagues (89%), 65 Koo and colleagues ('most' patients in their qualitative study) 60 and De Tullio and colleagues (82%). 57 Morris and colleagues reported high levels for a shorter insert (88%) but lower for a brochure (33%).…”

“…Only Koo and colleagues' study described a qualitative method. 60 Of the seven surveys, one was 'hypothetical' (see above) in that participants were not selected because they had had recent exposure to written (32) medicines information. 65 Hospital patients in Bandesha's survey were questioned about written information that they had received with medicines at home.…”

“…60 In four focus groups, the participants were asked to read a medicines leaflet in the session. The remaining two groups were mailed a leaflet for one of their prescription medicines some time before the focus group took place.…”

“…Ten studies focused on patients, 53,55,57,58,[60][61][62][63]65,77 one on health professionals 64 and two included both.…”

“…A response to policy initiatives relating to written medicines information (12 studies). 53,[55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] 2. The 'uninformed' patient and the certainty of professional knowledge and the consequent need to educate the patient (eight studies).…”