Predicting Expectations of Side-Effects for Those Which Are Warned Versus Not Warned About in Patient Information Leaflets

Measuring the Influence of Side Effect Expectations, Beliefs, and Incident Side Effects on the Risk for Drug Discontinuation Among Individuals Starting New Medications, a Cross-sectional Study

Purpose

To measure the impact of beliefs, expectations, side effects, and their combined effects on the risk for medication nonpersistence.

Patients and methods

Using a cross-sectional design, individuals from Saskatchewan, Canada who started a new antihypertensive, cholesterol-lowering, or antihyperglycemic medication were surveyed about risk factors for nonpersistence including: (a) beliefs measured by a composite score of three questions asking about the threat of the condition, importance of the drug, and harm of the drug; (b) incident side effects attributed to treatment; and (c) expectations for side effects before starting treatment. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used to quantify the influence of these risk factors on the outcome of nonpersistence. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated.

Results

Among 3,029 respondents, 5.8% (n=177) reported nonpersistence within four months after starting the new drug. After adjustment for numerous covariates representing sociodemographics, health-care providers, medication experiences and beliefs, both negative beliefs (OR: 7.26, 95%CI: 4.98-10.59) and incident side effects (OR: 8.00, 95%CI: 5.49-11.68) were associated with the highest odds of nonpersistence with no evidence of interaction. In contrast, expectations for side effects before starting treatment exhibited an important interaction with incident side effects following treatment initiation. Among respondents with incident side effects (n=741, 24.5%), the risk for early nonpersistence was 11.5% if they indicated an expectation for side effects before starting the medication compared to 23.6% if they did not (adjusted OR: 0.38, 95%CI: 0.25-0.60).

Conclusion

Expectations for side effects may be a previously unrecognized but important marker of the probability to persist with treatment. A high percentage of new medication users appeared unprepared for the possibility of side effects from their new medication making them less resilient if side effects occur.

The effect of nocebo explanation and empathy on side-effect expectations of medication use following a fictional GP consultation

The simple act of informing patients about side-effects increases the likelihood they will experience them (i.e. the nocebo effect). Explaining this psychological phenomenon could help to reduce side-effect experience, however, it is yet to be explored if this can be applied to clinical settings where new medication is prescribed. In addition, the degree to which a health-care provider empathetically communicates this to patients may have an impact. To investigate this, we carried out 2 × 2 factorial trial to assess the effect of nocebo explanation and empathy (plus their interaction) on side-effect expectations following a fictional GP consultation prescribing a new medication. Overall, 208 participants were randomised to watch one of the four fictive GP consultations and play the role of the patient. In all videos, participants received information about the reason for the consultation, the recommendation of a new fictive medicine, how to take it, benefits and side-effects. The videos differed in whether the GP provided an explanation of the nocebo effect (yes/no) and whether they communicated in an empathetic style (yes/no). After watching the video, participants were asked about their side-effect expectations and rated the quality of the GP's communication. Two-way ANOVAs revealed no main effect of nocebo explanation on expectation of side-effects warned or not warned about in the consultation. However, there was a main effect of empathy, with participants watching the empathetic consultations having significantly lower expectations of non-warned-about side-effects. There was no significant interaction. Findings suggest that explaining the nocebo effect and GP empathy did little to allay expectations of side-effects that were specifically mentioned in the consultation. However, GP empathy had an effect by helping to reduce additional side-effect expectations participants still had. Future work should extend these findings to real GP consultations where the full dimensions of empathy can be explored.

What Is the Benefit of Adding Placebo Side-Effect Information to Positively Framed Patient Leaflets?

Abstract. Background: Positively framing side-effect risk in patient information leaflets (PILs) can reduce side-effect expectations and resulting nocebo effects (nonspecific medication side effects unrelated to the drug’s pharmacological action). There is scope to educate patients about nocebo effects in PILs to minimize their occurrence further. Aims: To investigate if incorporating information on placebo-reported side effects reduces side-effect expectations compared to a positively framed-only or standard PIL. Methods: Participants ( N = 443) completed an online study and were randomized to read one of three PILs for a hypothetical antibiotic: standard PIL ( n = 140), positively framed PIL ( n = 151), or positively framed PIL with placebo side-effect information ( n = 152). Participants’ side-effect expectations, absolute risk perceptions, and intended adherence were recorded. Results: The standard PIL resulted in significantly higher side-effect expectations compared to the positively framed + placebo side-effect information PIL. Including the placebo side-effect results had no effect on side-effect expectations compared to the positive framing only PIL, however, there was a significant interaction between health literacy and PIL condition on side-effect expectations. Both positively framed PILs produced more accurate risk estimates for the more common side effects. There was no difference in intended adherence between the three PILs. Limitations: Our findings are limited by the highly educated sample and hypothetical context. Conclusions: There was no benefit of adding placebo side-effect information, however alternative ways of explaining nocebo effects in PILs should be explored utilizing clinical contexts and samples with a wider range of participant ages, and health literacy.

Positive Attribute Framing Increases COVID-19 Booster Vaccine Intention for Unfamiliar Vaccines

Positive framing has been proposed as an intervention to increase COVID-19 vaccination intentions. However, available research has examined fictitious or unfamiliar treatments. This pre-registered study (aspredicted#78369) compared the effect of standard negatively framed EU patient information leaflets (PILs), with new positively framed PILs, on booster intentions (measured pre- and post-intervention) for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. A representative sample of 1222 UK-based adults was randomised to one of six groups in a factorial design with framing (Positive vs. Negative) and vaccine familiarity (same (as previous), familiar, unfamiliar) as factors. The benefit of positive framing was hypothesised to be strongest for the least familiar vaccine (Moderna). Framing was moderated by familiarity, where only the unfamiliar vaccine showed a benefit of positive relative to negative Framing. Framing and familiarity also interacted with baseline Intention with the effect of framing on the unfamiliar vaccine especially pronounced at low baseline Intent. Conversely, standard negative framing appeared to increase intentions for familiar vaccines at low baseline intent. Findings provide important evidence that positive framing could improve vaccine uptake globally when switches or new developments require individuals to receive less familiar vaccines. Positive framing of familiar vaccines, however, should be treated with caution until better understood.

Beliefs About Medicines Predict Side-Effects of Placebo Modafinil

BACKGROUND

Patients receiving placebo in clinical trials often report side-effects (nocebo effects), but contributing factors are still poorly understood.

PURPOSE

Using a sham trial of the cognition-enhancing "smart pill" Modafinil we tested whether medication beliefs and other psychological factors predicted detection and attribution of symptoms as side-effects to placebo.

METHODS

Healthy students (n = 201) completed measures assessing beliefs about medication, perceived sensitivity to medicines, negative affectivity, somatization, and body awareness; 66 were then randomized to receive Deceptive Placebo (told Modafinil-given placebo, 67 to Open Placebo (told placebo-given placebo, and 68 to No Placebo. Memory and attention tasks assessed cognitive enhancement. Nocebo effects were assessed by symptom checklist.

RESULTS

More symptoms were reported in the Deceptive Placebo condition (M = 2.65; SD = 2.27) than Open Placebo (M = 1.92; SD = 2.24; Mann-Whitney U = 1,654, z = 2.30, p = .022) or No Placebo (M = 1.68; SD = 1.75, Mann-Whitney U = 1,640, z = 2.74, p = .006). Participants were more likely to attribute symptoms to Modafinil side-effects if they believed pharmaceuticals to be generally harmful (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.70, p = .019), had higher perceived sensitivity to medicines (IRR = 1.68, p = .011), stronger concerns about Modafinil (IRR = 2.10, p < .001), and higher negative affectivity (IRR = 2.37, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Beliefs about medication are potentially modifiable predictors of the nocebo effect. These findings provide insight into side-effect reports to placebo and, potentially, active treatment.