Society’s understanding and perception of risk descriptors in medicine

Abstract

Background: The current verbal descriptors used to describe the five different levels of side-effect risk in patient information leaflets (PILs) are greatly overestimated compared to their corresponding numerical risk frequency band (e.g. Common – up to 1 in 10 people). The aim of this research is to establish what verbal descriptors we should be using (if at all) for each frequency band identified by the EU. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of 1067 members of the general public aged 18-65 will be carried out by an online polling company. Participants will be asked for their probability estimates for a range of different verbal risk descriptors used to communicate side-effect risk for an imaginary drug. These will include verbal descriptors currently in use and alternative ones. Analyses will determine the verbal risk descriptors which are consistently given probability estimates that match each of the five EU frequency bands. Expected results: It is expected results will be equivocal as it is likely there will be no verbal risk descriptors which result in consistent probability estimates that match each frequency band. Current stage of work: Ethical approval has been obtained and recruitment is starting shortly. Discussion: This will be the first study representative of the English population to highlight the problem of using verbal descriptors to communicate side-effect risk in PILs. This is intended to encourage the development of better ways to verbally communicate side-effect risk in PILs, or depending on the extent of the results, the abandonment of verbal risk descriptors altogether.