Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 205–210 | Cite as

Desire for information about drugs: relationships with patients' characteristics and adverse effects

  • R. Laaksonen
  • C. DugganEmail author
  • I. Bates


Introduction: Adverse effects of drugs are known to cause problems both in hospital and general practice settings, contributing to longer stays in a hospital, and increased costs of hospitalisation. By developing both a greater understanding of adverse drug reactions and effects and developing ways to reduce them will assist pharmacists in managing medicines more effectively. The aim of this study was to explore the relationships between patient characteristics, information requirements and perceptions about adverse drug effects to assist pharmacists in identifying patients most at risk of ADRs. Methods: The study took place on medical wards at a London teaching hospital during an eight week period in Autumn 2000. Patients were recruited using convenience sampling during the recruitment period. Once eligible patients consented to take part, standardised interviews were conducted at their bedside. The interviews included the use of the previously validated scale which measures the extent of information desired (EID), patient characteristics including age, gender, socio‐economic status etc and the presence of an adverse drug effect was assessed using the Naranjo algorithm. Patients were also asked semi‐structured questions to explore past and present experiences of adverse drug effects.Results: 82 patients were recruited, 80 were eligible for adverse effects of drugs assessment. Fifteen percent (12/80) of patients were assessed as having "definite" and "probable" adverse drug effects, based on the Naranjo algorithm. The previously validated EID scale was found to be both valid and reliable in this patient sample. There was an association between high scores on the EID scale and the presence of an adverse drug effect (chi‐squared = 4.97, p = 0.02). Conclusion: The results show an association between the occurrence of an adverse drug effect on admission (identified by the Naranjo scale), the experience of an adverse drug effect in the past and a patient's desire for information. The EID‐scale could be developed into a useful tool for assessing and addressing patients' drug information needs for pharmacists to use when assessing adverse drug effects in everyday practice.

Adverse drug effects Drug information EID (extent of information desired) scale Information need Medicines management 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Leape L, Brennan T, Laird N, Lawthers A, Localio A, Barnes B, et al. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients: Results of the Harvard medical practice study II. (1991) N Engl J Med 1991;324:377–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Martys C. Adverse reactions to drugs in general practice. BMJ 1979;619:1194–7.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Classen D, Pestotnik S, Evans R, Lloyd J, Burke J. Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. J Am Med Assoc 1997;277:301–6.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Department of Health. An Organisation with a Memory, London: HMSO, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hurwitz N. Predisposing factors in adverse reactions to drugs. BMJ 1969;634:536–9.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bennett B, Lipman A. Comparative study of prospective surveillance and voluntary reporting in determining the incidence of adverse drug reactions. Am J Hosp Pharm 1977;34:931–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mannesse C, Derkx F, Ridder M, Cammen T, Veld A. Adverse drug reactions in elderly patients as contributing factor for hospital admission: cross sectional study. BMJ 1997;315:1057–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gholami K, Shalviri G. Factors associated with preventability, predictability, and severity of adverse drug reactions. Ann Pharmacother 1999;33:236–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moore N, Lecointre D, Noblet C, Mabille M. Frequency and cost of serious adverse drug reactions in a department of general medicine. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998;45:301–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hurwitz N. Admissions to hospital due to drugs. BMJ 1969;643:539–40.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Martínez-Mir I, García-López M, Palop V, Ferrer J, Estañ L, Rubio E, Morales-Olivas F. A prospective study of adverse drug reactions as a cause of admission to a paediatric hospital. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1996;42:319–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koch K. Use of standardized screening procedures to identify adverse drug reactions. Am J Hosp Pharm 1990;47:1314–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Azaz-Livshits T, Levy M, Sadan B, Shalit M, Geisslinger G, Brune K. Computerized surveillance of adverse drug reactions in hospital: pilot study. Br J Clinl Pharmacol 1998;45:309–14.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karch F, Lasagna L. Toward the operational identification of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Therapeutics 1977;21:247–54.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kramer M, Leventhal J, Hutchinson T, Feinstein A. An algorithm for the operational assessment of adverse drug reactions. I: background, description, and instructions for use. J Am Med Assoc 1979;242:623–32.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Naranjo C, Busto U, Sellers E, Sandor P, Ruiz I, Roberts E, Janecek E, Domecq C, Greenblatt D. A method for estimating the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Therapeutics 1981;30:239–47.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Michel D, Knodel L. Comparison of three algorithms used to evaluate adverse drug reactions. Am J Hosp Pharm 1986;43:1709–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beard K. Adverse reactions as a cause of hospital admission in the aged. Drugs Aging 1992;2:356–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    O'Brien B, Elswood J, Calin A. Perception of drug risks: A survey of patients with ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 1990;17:503–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Coulter A, Entwistle V, Gilbert D. Sharing decisions with patients: is the information good enough? BMJ 1999;318:318–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Busson M, Dunn A. Patients' knowledge about prescribed medicines. Pharmaceut J 1986;236:624–6.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gibbs S, Waters W, George C. Communicating information to patients about medicine. J R Soc Med 1990;83:292–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Duggan C, Bates I. Development and evaluation of a survey tool to explore patients' perceptions of their prescribed drugs and their need for drug information. Int J Pharm Pract 2000;8:42–52.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Åström K, Carlsson J, Bates I, Webb D, Duggan C, Sanghani P, McRobbie D. Desire for information about drugs: a multimethod study in general medical inpatients. Pharm World Sci 2000;22:159–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    British National Formulary March 2000. The British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wood S, Vere D. Clinical pharmacology and general patient care in two teaching hospitals. J R Soc Med 1980;73:355–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Academic Department of PharmacyBarts & the London NHS TrustLondon EC1A 7BEUK
  2. 2.Centre for Practice and Policy, School of PharmacyUniversity of London, 29/39LondonUK

Personalised recommendations