Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
The Additional Value of an E-Mail to Inform Healthcare Professionals of a Drug Safety Issue: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the Netherlands
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
The Additional Value of an E-Mail to Inform Healthcare Professionals of a Drug Safety Issue: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the Netherlands
Do you wish to request the book?
The Additional Value of an E-Mail to Inform Healthcare Professionals of a Drug Safety Issue: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the Netherlands
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
The Additional Value of an E-Mail to Inform Healthcare Professionals of a Drug Safety Issue: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the Netherlands
2013
Overview
Background
The usefulness and the impact of Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs, or ‘Dear Doctor letters’) in changing the clinical behaviour of physicians have been debated. Changes in the current risk communication methods should preferably be based on the preferences of the healthcare professionals, to optimize the uptake of the message.
Objective
The aim of this study was to assess whether safety issues are communicated more effectively with an additional e-mail sent by the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) than with the DHPC only.
Methods
A randomized controlled trial was conducted amongst ophthalmologists and hospital pharmacists in the Netherlands, who were the target group of a DHPC that was issued for pegaptanib, a drug that is administered intra-ocularly in patients with macular degeneration. The intervention group (
N
= 110) received the pegaptanib DHPC, as well as the MEB e-mail. The control group (
N
= 105) received the traditional paper-based DHPC only. Two weeks later, the study population received an invitation to fill out an online questionnaire. Questions were asked about the respondents’ knowledge and attitude regarding the pegaptanib issue, and any action they had consequently taken. Additional questions were asked about their satisfaction with the DHPC and the e-mail, and their preferred source of such information.
Results
Forty respondents (18.6 %) completed the questionnaire. Eighty-one percent of the respondents in the intervention group (
N
= 21) and 47 % of the control group (
N
= 19) correctly indicated that a serious increase in intra-ocular pressure could be caused by pegaptanib injections (Fishers’ exact test,
p
= 0.046). Nine respondents in the intervention group versus none of the control group respondents indicated that they had taken action in response to the pegaptanib safety issue (Fishers’ exact test,
p
= 0.01). The majority of both the intervention group and the control group confirmed that they would like to receive an MEB e-mail with safety information about drugs in the future (90 and 95 %, respectively).
Conclusion
The results of this study indicate that an additional e-mail might strengthen the uptake of the safety information provided to healthcare professionals, who prefer to receive an e-mail from the MEB as a source of such information, as well as the DHPC. This study may serve as a starting point for new strategies to improve risk communication regarding safety issues associated with drugs and its impact on prescribing.
Publisher
Springer International Publishing,Adis International,Springer Nature B.V
