Advertisement

Risk Perception of Prescription Drugs: Report on a Survey in Sweden

  • P. Slovic
  • N. N. Kraus
  • H. Lappe
  • H. Letzel
  • T. Malmfors
Part of the Health Systems Research book series (HEALTH)

Abstract

RAD-AR, standing for risk assessment of drugs—analysis and response, is a program designed to improve the analysis and management of drug risks. Within the context of the RAD-AR program, risk perception has been designated as a priority research area. Knowledge of perception has been demonstrated to be vitally important in helping individuals and societies manage risks more effectively [4, 7]. In medicine, perceptions of drug risks are likely to influence patients’ treatment choices, their compliance with treatment regimes, their views on the acceptability of adverse reactions, and their attitudes toward government regulation of drugs [9]. Understanding perceptions is a prerequisite for designing better communication materials for patients and the public. Yet most work in this area has focused on perceptions of risk from nuclear power, industrial chemicals, and other nonmedical hazards. Few, if any, studies have examined perceptions of pharmaceutical risks.

Keywords

Herbal Medicine Prescription Drug Risk Perception Heart Surgery Artificial Sweetener 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    EPRI Journal (1980) Assessment: the impact and influence of TMI. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California 5 (5), 24–33Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Evans N, Hope CW (1982) Costs of nuclear accidents: implications for reactor choice. Energy Policy 295–304Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, Brown HS, Emel G, Goble R, Kasperson JX, Ratick S (1988) The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8, 177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    The Royal Society (1983) Risk assessment: report of a Royal Society study group. LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Fischhoff B (1984) Modeling the societal impact of fatal accidents. Management Science, 30: 464–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (1985) Characterizing perceived risk. In Kates RW, Hohenemser C, Kasperson JX (eds) Perilous progress: technology as hazard. Westview, Boulder, Colorado, pp 91–123Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science, 236: 280–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Szalay LB, Deese J (1978) Subjective meaning and culture: an assessment through word association. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    von Wartburg WP (1984) Drugs and the perception of risks. Swiss Pharma, 6 (No. 11a): 21–23Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Slovic
  • N. N. Kraus
  • H. Lappe
  • H. Letzel
  • T. Malmfors

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations