Perception of risk information. Similarities and differences between Danish and Polish general practitioners

Nexøe, Jørgen; Ołtarzewska, Alicja Małgorzata; Sawicka-Powierza, Jolanta; Kragstrup, Jakob; Kristiansen, Ivar Sønbø

doi:10.1080/028134302760234663

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is consistent with the results of previous studies [17,26]. The emphasis on relative rather than absolute statistics may overstate the benefit of medicines which may lead to irrational prescribing [23,24]. The reliability of journal advertising would be improved if regulations and codes of conduct included specific requirements with regards to the presentation of quantitative information.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quality of claims, references and the presentation of risk results in medical journal advertising: a comparative study in Australia, Malaysia and the United States

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundJournal advertising is used by pharmaceutical companies to disseminate medicine information to doctors. The quality of claims, references and the presentation of risk results in Australia and the US has been questioned in several studies. No recent evidence is available on the quality of claims, references and the presentation of risk results in journal advertising in Australia and the US and no Malaysian data have been published. The aim of this study was to compare the quality of claims, references and the presentation of risk results in journal advertising in these three countries.MethodsA consecutive sample of 85 unique advertisements from each country was selected from journal advertising published between January 2004 to December 2006. Claims, references and the presentation of risk results in medical journal advertising were compared between the three countries.ResultsLess than one-third of the claims were unambiguous claims (Australia, 30%, Malaysia 17%, US, 23%). In Malaysia significantly less unambiguous claims were provided than in Australia and the US (P < 0.001). However, the unambiguous claims were supported by more references than other claims (80%). Most evidence was obtained from at least one randomized controlled trial, a systematic review or meta-analysis (Australia, 84%, Malaysia, 81%, US, 76%) with journal articles being the most commonly cited references in all countries. Data on file were significantly more likely to be cited in the US (17%) than in Australia (2%) and Malaysia (4%) (P < 0.001). Advertisements that provided quantitative information reported risk results exclusively as a relative risk reductionConclusionsThe majority of claims were vague suggesting poor quality of claims in journal advertising in these three countries. Evidence from a randomized controlled trial, systematic review or meta- analysis was commonly cited to support claims. However, the more frequent use of data that have not been published and independently reviewed in the US compared to Australia and Malaysia raises questions on the quality of references in the US. The use of relative rather than absolute benefits may overemphasize the benefit of medicines which may leave doctors susceptible to misinterpreting information.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Several studies have shown that doctors' attitudes in choosing medicines for patients varies according to the presentation of the risk results [23,24]. Doctors are more likely to recommend medicines when the presentation of benefits are presented as RRR [24].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of claims, references and the presentation of risk results in medical journal advertising: a comparative study in Australia, Malaysia and the United States

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When communicating risk using relative risk reduction [RRR] as opposed to absolute risk reduction [ARR] and number needed to treat [NNT] more correct answers are obtained: 60 versus 42 and 30%, respectively ( p = 0.001) (36). Studies document that both patients (37) and doctors (38, 39) find an estimate expressed as a RRR bigger than the equivalent NNT and ARR, that NNT are difficult for patients to use and interpret, and that most patients (79% for RRR, 83% for ARR and 94% for NNT) are unable to calculate the effect of an intervention in either format ( p = 0.004) (36).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Informed consent: providing information about prenatal examinations

Dahl

Kesmodel

Hvidman

et al. 2006

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fahey et al 14 compared the use of NNT to absolute risk reduction in a clinical guideline for cardiovascular risk management, but no effect on short-term patient surrogate end points was detected. Other empirical evidence stems from surveys of laypeople, 5 patients, 15 physicians, 7,[16][17][18] and health administrators. 19 A consistent finding is the lower proportion of consent to therapy when treatment effects are presented as NNT or absolute risk reduction rather than relative risk reduction.…”

Section: Commentmentioning

confidence: 99%