Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 806–822 | Cite as

Potential negative impact of informing patients about medication side effects: a systematic review

  • Jimmy JoseEmail author
  • Lamia AlHajri
Review Article

Abstract

Background Pharmacovigilance, as it is carried out primarily by healthcare professionals is more focused on being very objective in nature. Acknowledging the importance of the subjective experience of patients in pharmacovigilance was underpinned by its unique ability to bring about a more holistic understanding through the deep information unraveled by the patients. Medication safety-related information has to be shared with patients to allow them to be actively involved in their therapy and pharmacovigilance. Despite the advantages of sharing information, it stands to reasons whether sharing information related to possible side effects would negatively affect patients and impinge upon their treatment plan and process. Aim of the Review The purpose of this systematic review was to critically assess the potential negative impact of informing patients about medication side effects by written and/or oral information on medication compliance, occurrence/development of suspected side effects and clinical outcomes. Method A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, and Cochrane library to identify potential records between the year 1975 and 2017; then titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened using the inclusion criteria to filter out irrelevant studies. The data extraction, and the results were narratively synthesized and presented in tables. Results A total of 2012 articles were screened for inclusion, 32 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and finally resulting in the inclusion of 17 randomized control studies which met the set criteria. Findings unraveled that the educational intervention did not result in increased occurrence/reporting of side effects in most of the evaluated studies; except 4 studies, and no significant impact on compliance to medications and negative clinical outcome was observed. Apprehension of negative events to medications were observed in two of the four studies which evaluated these parameters. Conclusion The present review did not find enough evidence to support the over concerns on the potential negative impact of sharing of information on the adverse effects to patients, though the influence could manifest as nocebo-effect. The various components and methods employed for this information sharing process can influence the potential impact of this activity. These concerns about the undesirable effects should not deter the active involvement of patients in pharmacovigilance activities. There is a definite need to have more studies in this area, where much of concern still does exist among the various stakeholders of drug safety information.

Keywords

Adverse drug reactions Drug safety information Nocebo effect Patient education Pharmacovigilance Side effects 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Hisn A’Shumookh library, Sultanate of Oman and Dr. James Stevenson, College of Pharmacy, University of Michigan in facilitating the access of many full text articles included in the review.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflicts of interest

Jimmy Jose and Lamia AlHajri declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. The importance of pharmacovigilance. Safety monitoring of medicinal products. United Kingdom. 2002. http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/pdf/s4893e/s4893e.pdf. Cited 30 Jan 2018.
  2. 2.
    Monkman H, Kushniruk AW. All consumer medication information is not created equal: implications for medication safety. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;234:233–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    World Health Organization. Essential medicines and health products. http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/safety_efficacy/pharmvigi/en/. Cited 30 Jan 2018.
  4. 4.
    Sottosanti L. Current roles of the patients in pharmacovigilance activities: regulatory perspective. http://congresso.sifweb.org/programma/abs/102.pdf. Cited 30 Jan 2018.
  5. 5.
    van Hunsel F. The contribution of direct patient reporting to pharmacovigilance. Dissertation on the Internet. Netherlands: University of Groningen. 2011. https://www.lareb.nl/media/3026/2011_4_thesis_patient_reporting.pdf. Cited 30 Jan 2018.
  6. 6.
    Blenkinsopp A, Wilkie P, Wang M, Routledge PA. Patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: a review of published literature and international experience. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2007;63(2):148–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aagaard L, Hansen EH. Adverse drug reactions reported by consumers for nervous system medications in Europe 2007 to 2011. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2013;13(14):30.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2050-6511-14-30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aagaard L, Nielsen LH, Hansen EH. Consumer reporting of adverse drug reactions: a retrospective analysis of the Danish adverse drug reaction database from 2004 to 2006. Drug Saf. 2009;32(11):1067–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Medscape CME/CE. Communicating drug risk to patients. 2008. https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/581013_2. Cited 19 Jan 2018.
  10. 10.
    Jarernsiripornkul N, Chaipichit N, Chumworathayi P, Krska J. Management for improving patients’ knowledge and understanding about drug allergy. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2015;13(1):513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Couvertier-Lebron CE, Dove R, Acevedo SF. What you do not know could hurt you: what women wish their doctors had told them about chemotherapy side effects on memory and response to alcohol. Breast Cancer (Auckl). 2016;10:229–38.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morris LA, Kanouse DE. Informing patients about drug side effects. J Behav Med. 1982;5(3):363–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Glicksman JT, Sherman I, Rotenberg BW. Informed consent when prescribing medication: a randomized controlled trial. Laryngoscope. 2014;124(6):1296–300.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Angunawela II, Mullee MA. Drug information for the mentally ill: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract. 1998;2(2):121–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Quaid KA, Faden RR, Vining EP, Freeman JM. Informed consent for a prescription drug: impact of disclosed information on patient understanding and medical outcomes. Patient Educ Couns. 1990;15(3):249–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Whitford HS, Olver IN. When expectations predict experience: the influence of psychological factors on chemotherapy toxicities. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2012;43(6):1036–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barsky AJ, Saintfort R, Rogers MP, Borus JF. Nonspecific medication side effects and the nocebo phenomenon. JAMA. 2002;287(5):622–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1006–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Silvestri A, Galetta P, Cerquetani E, Marazzi G, Patrizi R, Fini M, et al. Report of erectile dysfunction after therapy with beta-blockers is related to patient knowledge of side effects and is reversed by placebo. Eur Heart J. 2003;24(21):1928–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chaplin R, Kent A. Informing patients about tardive dyskinesia. Controlled trial of patient education. Br J Psychiatry. 1998;172:78–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chaplin R, Timehin C. Informing patients about tardive dyskinesia: four-year follow up of a trial of patient education. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2002;36(1):99–103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kleinman I, Schachter D, Koritar E. Informed consent and tardive dyskinesia. Am J Psychiatry. 1989;146(7):902–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lamb GC, Green SS, Heron J. Can physicians warn patients of potential side effects without fear of causing those side effects? Arch Intern Med. 2015;154(23):2753–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Howland JS, Baker MG, Poe T. Does patient education cause side effects? A controlled trial. J Fam Pract. 1990;31(1):62–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moyano JR, Zambrano SC. The influence of information leaflets on morphine consumption in postoperative patients using patient-controlled analgesia. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2011;25(4):335–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gibbs S, Waters WE, George CF. Prescription information leaflets: a national survey. J R Soc Med. 1990;83(5):292–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mondaini N, Gontero P, Giubilei G, Lombardi G, Cai T, Gavazzi A, et al. Finasteride 5 mg and sexual side effects: how many of these are related to a nocebo phenomenon? J Sex Med. 2007;4(6):1708–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Taddio A, Ito S, Einarson TR, Leeder JS, Koren G. Effect of counseling on maternal reporting of adverse effects in nursing infants exposed to antibiotics through breast milk. Reprod Toxicol. 1995;9(2):153–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chumbley GM, Ward L, Hall GM, Salmon P. Pre-operative information and patient-controlled analgesia: much ado about nothing. Anaesthesia. 2004;59(4):354–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cocco G. Erectile dysfunction after therapy with metoprolol: the Hawthorne effect. Cardiology. 2009;112(3):174–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gibbs S, Waters WE, George CF. The benefits of prescription information leaflets (1). Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1989;27(6):723–39.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jacobs W, Das E, Schagen SB. Increased cognitive problem reporting after information about chemotherapy-induced cognitive decline: the moderating role of stigma consciousness. Psychol Health. 2017;32(1):78–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vesco D, Toumi M, Faraj F, Razzouk H, Orehek J. Manufacturer’s information insert and subjective theophylline side-effects. Eur Respir J. 1990;3(10):1162–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Al-Saffar N, Desmukh AA, Carter P, Adib SM. Effect of information leaflets and counselling on antidepressant adherence: open randomised controlled trial in a psychiatric hospital in Kuwait. Int J Pharm Pract. 2005;13(2):123–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Baker D, Roberts DE, Newcombe RG, Fox KA. Evaluation of drug information for cardiology patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1991;31(5):525–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Burgers C, Beukeboom CJ, Sparks L, Diepeveen V. How (not) to inform patients about drug use: use and effects of negations in Dutch patient information leaflets. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2015;24(2):137–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Colagiuri B, McGuinness K, Boakes RA, Butow PN. Warning about side effects can increase their occurrence: an experimental model using placebo treatment for sleep difficulty. J Psychopharmacol. 2012;26(12):1540–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dowse R, Barford K, Browne SH. Simple, illustrated medicines information improves ARV knowledge and patient self-efficacy in limited literacy South African HIV patients. AIDS Care. 2014;26(11):1400–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gossell-Williams M, Bennett O, Dias Y, Foster K, Houston M, Wright K, et al. Preference of patient information leaflets over standard drug monographs by patients prescribed hydrochlorothiazide, nifedipine and enalapril. West Indian Med J. 2012;61(3):271–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Köpke S, Kern S, Ziemssen T, Berghoff M, Kleiter I, Marziniak M, et al. Evidence-based patient information programme in early multiple sclerosis: a randomised controlled trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2014;85(4):411–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Macpherson R, Jerrom B, Hughes A. A controlled study of education about drug treatment in schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry. 1996;168(6):709–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Modesto W, Bahamondes MV, Bahamondes L. A randomized clinical trial of the effect of intensive versus non-intensive counselling on discontinuation rates due to bleeding disturbances of three long-acting reversible contraceptives. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(7):1393–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Munetz MR, Roth LH. Informing patients about tardive dyskinesia. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1985;42(9):866–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Quaid KA, Faden RR, Vining EP, Freeman JM. Informed consent for a prescription drug: impact of disclosed information on patient understanding and medical outcomes. Patient Educ Couns. 1990;15(3):249–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rheker J, Winkler A, Doering BK, Rief W. Learning to experience side effects after antidepressant intake—results from a randomized, controlled, double-blind study. Psychopharmacology. 2017;234(3):329–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Riese C, Weiß B, Borges U Jr, Beylich A, Dengler R, Hermes-Moll K, et al. Effectiveness of a standardized patient education program on therapy-related side effects and unplanned therapy interruptions in oral cancer therapy: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Support Care Cancer. 2017;25(11):3475–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schmitz J, Kamping S, Wiegratz J, Müller M, Stork J, Colloca L, et al. Impact of patient information leaflets on pain medication intake behavior: a pilot study. Pain Rep. 2017;2(6):e620.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Walker LM, Hampton AJ, Wassersug RJ, Thomas BC, Robinson JW. Androgen deprivation therapy and maintenance of intimacy: a randomized controlled pilot study of an educational intervention for patients and their partners. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013;34(2):227–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Inácio P, Cavaco A, Airaksinen M. The value of patient reporting to the pharmacovigilance system: a systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2017;83(2):227–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Delany LJ. Patient-centered care as an approach to improving health care in Australia. Aust J Nurs Pract Scholarsh Res. 2018;25(1):119–23.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Charles C, Whelan T, Gafni A. What do we mean by partnership in making decisions about treatment? BMJ. 1999;319(7212):780–2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Xu F. Informing patients about drug effects using positive suggestion. J Manag Care Pharm. 2008;14(4):395–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care (UK). Medicines adherence: involving patients in decisions about prescribed medicines and supporting adherence. London: Royal College of General Practitioners (UK). Jan 2009. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK55440/. Cited 30 Jan 2018.
  54. 54.
    Jose J, Chong D, Lynn TS, Jye GE, Jimmy B. A survey on the knowledge, beliefs and behaviour of a general adult population in Malaysia with respect to the adverse effects of medicines. Int J Pharm Pract. 2011;19(4):246–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Russel IF. How to inform patients about side effects of regional anesthesia and analgesia. http://www.finnanest.fi/files/l_russell_2.pdf. Cited 13 Feb 2018.
  56. 56.
    Brooks H, Sullivan WJ. The importance of patient autonomy at birth. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2002;11(3):196–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Carter A, Hall W. Informed consent to opioid agonist maintenance treatment: recommended ethical guidelines. Int J Drug Policy. 2008;19(1):79–89 PubMed PMID: 18077146.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Jose J, Jimmy B, Al-Mamari MN, Al-Hadrami TS, Al-Zadjali HM. Knowledge, beliefs and behaviours regarding the adverse effects of medicines in an Omani population: cross-sectional survey. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2015;15(2):e250–6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Faasse K, Petrie KJ. The nocebo effect: patient expectations and medication side effects. Postgrad Med J. 1055;2013(89):540–6.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wells RE, Kaptchuk TJ. To tell the truth, the whole truth, may do patients harm: the problem of the nocebo effect for informed consent. Am J Bioeth. 2012;12(3):22–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ziegler DK, Mosier MC, Buenaver M, Okuyemi K. How much information about adverse effects of medication do patients want from physicians? Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:706–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Nair K, Dolovich L, Cassels A, McCormack J, Levine M, Gray J, et al. What patients want to know about their medications: focus group study of patient and clinician perspectives. Can Fam Physician. 2002;48:104–10.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    General Medical Council. Good practice in prescribing and managing medicines and devices. London. 2013. https://www.gmc-uk.org/Prescribing_guidance.pdf_59055247.pdf. Cited 18 Feb 2018.
  64. 64.
    Horne R, Weinman J, Hankins M. The beliefs about medicines questionnaire: the development and evaluation of a new method for assessing the cognitive representation of medication. Psychol Health. 1999;14:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Horne R, Faasse K, Cooper V, Diefenbach MA, Leventhal H, Leventhal E, et al. The perceived sensitivity to medicines (PSM) scale: an evaluation of validity and reliability. Br J Health Psychol. 2013;18:18–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Slovic P, Kraus NN, Lappe H, Letzel H, Malmfors T. Risk perception of prescription drugs: report on a survey in Sweden. In: Horisberger B, Dinkel R, editors. The perception and management of drug safety risks. Health systems research. Berlin: Springer; 1989.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Diaz JA, Griffith RA, Ng JJ, Reinert SE, Friedmann PD, Moulton AW. Patients’ use of the Internet for medical information. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17(3):180–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Eriksson R, Aagaard L, Jensen LJ, Borisova L, Hørlück D, Brunak S, et al. Discrepancies in listed adverse drug reactions in pharmaceutical product information supplied by the regulatory authorities in Denmark and the USA. Pharmacol Res Perspect. 2014;2(3):e00038.  https://doi.org/10.1002/prp2.38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Peters E, Hart PS, Tusler M, Fraenkel L. Numbers matter to informed patient choices: a randomized design across age and numeracy levels. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(4):430–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Peters E, Hart PS, Fraenkel L. Informing patients: the influence of numeracy, framing, and format of side effect information on risk perceptions. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(3):432–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    McCormack L, Craig Lefebvre R, Bann C, Taylor O, Rausch P. Consumer understanding, preferences, and responses to different versions of drug safety messages in the united states: a randomized controlled trial. Drug Saf. 2016;39(2):171–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Herber OR, Gies V, Schwappach D, Thürmann P, Wilm S. Patient information leaflets: informing or frightening? A focus group study exploring patients’ emotional reactions and subsequent behavior towards package leaflets of commonly prescribed medications in family practices. BMC Fam Pract. 2014;15:163.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Mitsikostas DD, Chalarakis NG, Mantonakis LI, Delicha EM, Sfikakis PP. Nocebo in fibromyalgia: meta-analysis of placebo-controlled clinical trials and implications for practice. Eur J Neurol. 2012;19(5):672–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Rojas-Mirquez JC, Rodriguez-Zuñiga MJ, Bonilla-Escobar FJ, Garcia-Perdomo HA, Petkov M, Becerra L, et al. Nocebo effect in randomized clinical trials of antidepressants in children and adolescents: systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Behav Neurosci. 2014;8:375.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Stuart K. 25 reasons people aren’t enrolling in your clinical trial. Oct 2015. http://www.imperialcrs.com/blog/2015/10/25-reasons-people-arent-enrolling-in-your-clinical-trial/. Cited 17 Feb 2018.
  76. 76.
    Comprehensive Cancer Centres of Nevada. Common misconceptions about clinical research. https://www.cccnevada.com/clinical-research-misconceptions/. Cited 17 Feb 2018.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PharmacyUniversity of NizwaNizwaSultanate of Oman
  2. 2.Health Sciences DivisionHigher College of TechnologyDubaiUnited Arab Emirates
  3. 3.Department of Health ResearchLancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations