Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Graphics are known to be useful in communicating complex information, however they are rarely used in regulatory communication with patients.
Objective: To measure patients’ comprehension of benefit and risk of medicines using five presentation formats (text, table, bar graphs, pictograms and survival curves).
Methods: Data were collected via a web-questionnaire from patients in the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF), breast cancer (BC) and type II diabetes (DB). Patients were shown presentation formats for benefits and risks of medicines specific to their disease then asked comprehension questions after each presentation. Patients were also asked to indicate their preferred format.
Results: We report data for 770 patients (419 DB, 161 AF and 190 BC): age range 46 to 75 years; predominantly male for AF and DB and all female for BC; only 36% to 43% had more than 12 years of education. The table format was most understandable for AF patients with 71% responding correctly to all three questions for both benefits and risks. Among the BC patients the table format was also easier to understand with 82% responding correctly for the risk questions and 70% on the benefit questions. The majority (69%) of the BC patients also responded correctly for the benefit questions when presented in a survival curve. For the DB patients, 80% responded correctly for the risk questionsm but only 54% for the benefit questions when presented with the table format. The results show that across all formats the DB patients did not easily comprehend the benefits. Patients across all disease areas preferred the table format. Among BC patients 49% ranked the table as the most preferred, while for DB and AF it was 43% and 39% respectively.
Conclusion: The textual format currently used by regulators to communicate benefits and risks to the public does not result in high comprehension among patients. Regulators should consider adding tables to better support patient comprehension.
Objective: To measure patients’ comprehension of benefit and risk of medicines using five presentation formats (text, table, bar graphs, pictograms and survival curves).
Methods: Data were collected via a web-questionnaire from patients in the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF), breast cancer (BC) and type II diabetes (DB). Patients were shown presentation formats for benefits and risks of medicines specific to their disease then asked comprehension questions after each presentation. Patients were also asked to indicate their preferred format.
Results: We report data for 770 patients (419 DB, 161 AF and 190 BC): age range 46 to 75 years; predominantly male for AF and DB and all female for BC; only 36% to 43% had more than 12 years of education. The table format was most understandable for AF patients with 71% responding correctly to all three questions for both benefits and risks. Among the BC patients the table format was also easier to understand with 82% responding correctly for the risk questions and 70% on the benefit questions. The majority (69%) of the BC patients also responded correctly for the benefit questions when presented in a survival curve. For the DB patients, 80% responded correctly for the risk questionsm but only 54% for the benefit questions when presented with the table format. The results show that across all formats the DB patients did not easily comprehend the benefits. Patients across all disease areas preferred the table format. Among BC patients 49% ranked the table as the most preferred, while for DB and AF it was 43% and 39% respectively.
Conclusion: The textual format currently used by regulators to communicate benefits and risks to the public does not result in high comprehension among patients. Regulators should consider adding tables to better support patient comprehension.