Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public Pharmacovigilance Communication

A Process Calling for Evidence-Based, Objective-Driven Strategies

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As a contribution to the debate on how best to communicate information on the effective and safe use of medicines to patients, healthcare professionals and the general public, this article proposes to distinguish between communication and transparency purposes, and to test a strategic health communication approach. Any organization aiming to improve medicines use could adapt this approach to its remits and legal obligations.

The approach includes agreeing measurable communication objectives through shared problem ownership of all concerned parties, evidence-based design and a cyclic process for planning, implementation and evaluation of communication as a public health intervention.

The evidence base, which supplements risk assessment for product- and situation-specific communication on safety concerns, would be derived from research into drug utilization, medical decision making and risk perception, as well as from the participation of patients and healthcare professionals. It is crucial to address the practical questions and concerns of medicine users and to find out why unfavourable patterns of medicine use persist, in order to develop behaviour change models for overcoming these obstacles. For this purpose, appropriate models for facilitating the participation of medicine users in the risk management process will need to be explored. Such two-way communication would inform risk assessment as well as the analysis of risk minimization options, allow for agreement upon communication objectives and enable understandable, attractive communication materials to be designed. The communication programme should use mixed media and repetition of messages for long-term success. This would require cooperation within healthcare and medical information systems. An evaluation of the effectiveness of the communication should support the sustainability of the programme and provide lessons for the future.

Given its mission, the pharmacovigilance community has the standing and duty to expand its scale of action and take the initiative in advancing risk management through a scientific approach to improving public communication for the safety of patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Beijer HJM, Blaey de CJ. Hospitalisations caused by adverse reactions (ADR): a meta-analysis of observational studies. Pharm World Sci 2002; 24: 46–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Council of Europe (CoE) Expert Group on Safe Medication Practices. Creation of a better medication safety culture in Europe: building up safe medication practices. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2007

    Google Scholar 

  3. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Preventing medication errors. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  4. Leendertse AJ, Egberts ACG, Stoker LJ, et al. Frequency of and risk factors for preventable medication-related hospital admissions in the Netherlands. Arch Intern Med 2008; 168: 1890–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Muehlberger N, Schneeweiss S, Hasford J. Adverse drug reaction monitoring — cost and benefit considerations: part I. Frequency of adverse drug reactions causing hospital admissions. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1997; 6 Suppl. 3: S71–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pouyanne P, Haramburu F, Imbs JL, et al. Admissions to hospital caused by adverse drug reactions: cross-sectional incidence study. BMJ 2000; 320: 1036

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Boseley S. Adverse drug reactions cost NHS £2bn. The Guardian 2008 Apr 3 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/apr/03/nhs.drugsandalcohol [Accessed 2010 Aug 25]

  8. National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCCMERP). NCCMERP taxonomy: medication error. Rockville (MD): NCCMERP, 1989 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nccmerp.org/aboutMedErrors.html [Accessed 2009 Jul 13]

  9. Phillips J, Beam S, Brinker A, et al. Retrospective analysis of mortalities associated with medication errors. Am J Health System Pharm 2001; 58: 1835–41

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Uppsala Monitoring Centre. Adverse reaction [definition; online]. Available from URL: http://www.who-umc.org/DynPage.aspx?id=22673 [Accessed 2009 May 4]

  11. Goettler M, Schneeweiss S, Hasford J. Adverse drug reaction monitoring-cost and benefit considerations: part II. Cost and preventability of adverse drug reactions leading to hospital admission. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1997; 6 Suppl. 3: S79–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Howard RL, Avery AJ, Slavenburg S, et al. Which drugs cause preventable admissions to hospital? A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 63: 136–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. World Health Organization. The importance of pharmacovigilance. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  14. European Commission. Volume 9A of the rules governing medicinal products in the European Union: guidelines on pharmacovigilance for medicinal products for human use. Brussels: European Commission, 2007 (revised 2008)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Food and Drug and Administration. Guidance for industry: development and use of risk minimization action plans. Rockville (MD): Food and Drug Administration, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  16. Food and Drug and Administration. Guidance for industry: good pharmacovigilance practices and pharmacoepidemiologic assessment. Rockville (MD): Food and Drug Administration, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  17. Food and Drug and Administration. Guidance for industry: premarketing risk assessment. Rockville (MD): Food and Drug Administration, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  18. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. ICH topic E2E: pharmacovigilance planning (PvP). Geneva: ICH Secretariat, 2003

  19. Czarnecki A. Intelligent risk communication: can it be improved? Drug Saf 2008; 31: 1–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Edwards R, Hugman B. The challenge of effectively communicating risk-benefit information. Drug Saf 1997; 17: 216–27

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Gigerenzer G. Reckoning with risk. London: Penguin, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  22. Waller PC, Evans SJW, Beard K. Drug safety and the media. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2005; 61: 123–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Adams J. Risk. London: University College London Press, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, et al. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 1978; 9: 127–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Slovic P. Perceived risk, trust and democracy. In: Cvetkovich G, Löfstedt RE, editors. Social trust and the management of risk. London: Earthscan, 1999: 42–52

    Google Scholar 

  26. Uppsala Monitoring Centre. Effective communication in pharmacovigilance: the Erice report (report on the International Conference on Developing Effective Communications in Pharmacovigilane held in Erice, 24–27 September 1997, organised by the UMC, the World Health Organization, the University of Verona, the International School of Pharmacology, the Ettore Majorana Centre for Scientific Culture and supported by EQUUS Communications). Uppsala: Uppsala Monitoring Centre, 1997

  27. Erice Statement 2009: communication, medicines and patient safety. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2010; 69: 207–8

    Google Scholar 

  28. Uppsala Monitoring Centre. Dialogue in pharmacovigilance. Uppsala: Uppsala Monitoring Centre, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  29. Campbell WH, Califf RM. Improving communication of drug risks to prevent patient injury: proceedings of a workshop. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2003; 12: 183–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wrobel P, European Platform for Patients Organisations, Science and Industry. Workshop on patients safety: best practices on communicating risks and the value of safety to patients with chronic diseases. Brussels: EPPOSI, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bennett P, Calman K, editors. Risk communication and public health. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ng KL, Hamby DM. Fundamentals for establishing a risk communication programme. Health Phys 1997; 73: 473–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Littlejohn SW. Theories of human communication. 7th ed. Belmont (CA): Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  34. Bouder FE. A comparative analysis of risk perception related to human health issues. In: Richter IK, Berking S, Müller-Schmid R, editors. Risk society and the culture of precaution. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  35. Rimon JG. Strategic communication in public health: the way forward. Training course on “Leadership in Strategic Health Communication” provided by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Communication Programs; 2007 Jun 4–22; Baltimore (MD)

  36. Hornby AS, editor. Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary of current English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974

    Google Scholar 

  37. Merriam-Webster dictionary [online]. Available from URL: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary [Accessed 2008 Aug 9]

  38. IT Wissen, Das große Online-Lexikon für Informationstechnologie [online]. Available from URL: http://www.itwissen.info/definition/lexikon/message-Nachricht-MSG.html [Accessed 2009 Apr 10]

  39. International Monetary Fund Executive Board. Code of good practices on transparency in monetary and financial policies. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund, 2000 [online]. Available from URL: http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=4474 [Accessed 2008 Jul 25]

  40. Transparency International [online]. Available from URL: http://www.transparency.org [Accessed 2009 Apr 10]

  41. Bennett P. Understanding responses to risk: some basic findings. In: Bennett P, Calman K, editors. Risk communication and public health. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999: 3–19

    Google Scholar 

  42. National Prevention Information Network. Campaigns and initiatives: health communication strategies [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cdcnpin.org/scripts/campaign/strategy.asp [Accessed 2009 Jun 19]

  43. Communication impact [newsletter]. Issue no. 24. Baltimore (MD): Health Communication Partnership at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Communication Programs, 2008 Jan

  44. Howson J. HIV/AIDS: an overview for strategic health communication [workshop]. Training course on “Leadership in Strategic Health Communication” provided by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Communication Programs; 2007 Jun 4–22; Baltimore (MD)

  45. Aston K. Communication: yes, but does it work? In: WHO Regional Office for Europe. The pen is as mighty as the surgeon’s scalpel: improving health communication impact. London: The Nuffield Trust on behalf of WHO Regional Office for Europe, 1999: 29–33

    Google Scholar 

  46. Health Communication Partnership. The new P-process: steps in strategic communication. Baltimore (MD): Health Communication Partnership at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Communication Programs, 2003

  47. Renn O. Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. London: Earthscan, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  48. Kotler P, Roberto N, Lee N. Social marketing: improving the quality of life. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  49. Williams J. Strategy development for communication development [lecture]. Training course “Leadership in Strategic Health Communication” provided by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Communication Programs; 2007 Jun 4–22; Baltimore (MD)

  50. Storey D. Social and behavior change communication: a social ecology approach to strategic communication [lecture]. Training course “Leadership in Strategic Health Communication” provided by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Communication Programs; 200 Jun 4–22; Baltimore (MD)

  51. Zenz M. Germany: status of cancer pain and palliative care. J Pain Symptom Management 1993; 8: 416–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Zenz M, Zenz T, Tryba M, et al. Severe undertreatment of cancer pain: a 3-year survey of the German situation. J Pain Symptom Management 1995; 10: 187–91

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Fainzang S. Discourse on safe drug use: symbolic logics and ethical aspects. Drug Saf 2010; 33: 623–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Bongard V, Ménard-Taché S, Bagheri H, et al. Perception of the risk of adverse drug reactions: differences between health professionals and non health professionals. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 54: 433–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Nichols V, Thériault-Dubé I, Touzin J, et al. Risk perception and reasons for noncompliance in pharmacovigilance: a qualitative study conducted in Canada. Drug Saf 2009; 32: 579–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Slovic P, Kraus N, Lappe H, et al. Risk perception of prescription drugs: report on a survey in Canada. Can J Public Health 1991; 82(3): S15–20, S38-44

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Jacobs Quadrel M. Risk perception and communication. In: Detels R, McEwen J, Reaglehole R, et al., editors. Oxford textbook of public health. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  58. Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, et al. A mental models approach to HIV/AIDS. In: Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, editors. Risk communication: a mental models approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004: 160–78

    Google Scholar 

  59. Frewer LJ. Public perceptions and risk communication. In: Bennett P, Calman K, editors. Risk communication and public health. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999: 20–32

    Google Scholar 

  60. Löfstedt RE. Risk management in post-trust societies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005

    Book  Google Scholar 

  61. Goldman SA. Communication of medical product risk: how effective is effective enough? Drug Saf 2004; 27: 519–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Ball LK, Evans G, Bostrom A. Risky business: challenges in vaccine risk communication. Pediatrics 1998; 101: 453–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Bahri P. Parametrisierung von Rezeptdaten als Beitrag zur Qualitätssicherung der Arzneimittelverordnung [thesis, with summary in English: Parametrisation of prescription data as contribution to quality assurance of drug prescribing practice]. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  64. Doumit G, Gattellari M, Grimshaw J, et al. Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; (1): CD000125

  65. Sandman PM. Responding to community outrage: strategies for effective risk communication. Fairfax (VA): American Industrial Hygiene Association, 1993

    Book  Google Scholar 

  66. Goleman D. Emotional intelligence. London: Bloomsbury, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  67. Phelps EA. Emotion and cognition: insights from studies of the human amygdala. Ann Rev Psychol 2006; 57: 27–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Roth G. Nachwort: Denken und Handeln. In: Sentker A, Wigger F, editors. Schaltstelle Gehirn: Denken Erkennen, Handeln [Zeit Wissen edition]. Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag & Zeitverlag Gerd Bucerius, 2009: 262–72

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  69. Burgess DC, Burgess MA, Leask J. The MMR vaccination and autism controversy in United Kingdom 1998–2005: inevitable community outrage or a failure of risk communication? Vaccine 2006; 24: 3921–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Uehlecke J. Kampf gegen die Killerzellen. Zeit 2008 Jan 3; No. 2 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.zeit.de/2008/02/C-Serious-Games [Accessed 2010 Aug 25]

  71. Cheater F, Baker R, Gillies C, et al. Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; (3): CD005470

  72. Farmer AP, Légaré F, Turcot L, et al. Printed educational materials: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; (3): CD004398

  73. Forsetlund L, Børndal A, Rashidian A, et al. Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001; (1): CD003030

  74. O’Brien MA, Rogers S, Jamtvedt G, et al. Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; (4): CD000409

  75. Grimshaw JM, Shirran L, Thomas R, et al. Changing provider behavior: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions. Med Care 2001; 39 (8 Suppl. 2): II2–45

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Thomson O’Brien MA, Oxman AD, Davis DA, et al. Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes [Cochrane review]. Available in The Cochrane Library [database on disk and CD ROM]. Updated quarterly. The Cochrane Collaboration; issue 3. Oxford: Oxford Update Software, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  77. Furedi A. The public health implications of the 1995 “pill scare”. Hum Reprod Update 1999; 5: 621–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Renn O, Klinge A. Systemic risks: a new challenge to risk management. EMBO Reports 2004; 5: S41–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Stirling A. The precautionary approach to risk appraisal. Toronto (ON): Nuclear Waste Management Organization, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  80. Herings RMC. Geneesmiddelen als determinant van ongevallen. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  81. Brecht Ten Wolde G, Dijkstra A, Empelen Van P, et al. Psychological determinants of the intention to educate patients about benzodiazepines. Pharm World Sci 2008; 30: 336–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Lagnaoui R, Depont F, Fourrier A, et al. Patterns and correlates of benzodiazepine use in the French general population. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2004; 60: 523–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. McCormack B, Taylor BJ, McConville J, et al. Guidance document for the Northern Ireland Single Assessment Tool (NISAT) for the health and social care of older people. Belfast: Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  84. Mantel-Teeuwisse A, Straus S, Leufkens H, et al. Community pharmacists adherence to the isotretinoin pregnancy program in the Netherlands. 7th Annual Meeting of the International Society of Pharmacovigilance; 2007 Oct 21–24; Bournemouth

  85. World Health Organization (WHO). World Alliance for Patient Safety: forward programme 2005. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  86. Frank JR, Brien S, editors, on behalf of The Safety Competencies Steering Committee. The safety competencies: enhancing patient safety across the health professions. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Patient Safety Institute, 2008

  87. Economic and Social Research Council. Towards a better map: science, the public and the media. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  88. Mebane FE. The importance of news media in pharmaceutical risk communication: proceedings of a workshop. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2005; 14: 297–306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. When science hits the headlines. Public discussion with panelists: Mellor F (Imperial College London), Mendoza N (Science Media Centre), Perry J (The Sun), Vaughan D (British Antarctic Survey)]. London: Dana Centre, 2006 Nov 9

  90. Goldacre B. Bad science. London: Fourth Estate, 2009

    Google Scholar 

  91. Lowrey W, Evans W, Gower KK, et al. Effective media communication of disasters: pressing problems and recommendations. BMC Public Health 2007; 7: 97–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article is based on an oral presentation given at the International Society of Pharmacovigilance (ISoP) meeting in Buenos Aires in 2008. The views expressed are the personal view of the author and may not be understood or quoted as being made on behalf of or reflecting the position of the European Medicines Agency or one of its committees or working parties.

The author is grateful to the lecturing team of the Center for Communication Programs at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, led by Professor B.V. Lozare, for their comprehensive and encouraging teaching which inspired this article. Furthermore, the author conveys their thanks to Dr Frédéric Bouder, now at the University of Maastricht, for reviewing the manuscript prior to submission, to Kevin Halliwell for the language editing and to Beatrice Fayl for suggesting presentational improvements and creating the figure.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Medicines Agency, 7 Westferry Circus, Canary Wharf, London, E14 4HB, UK

    Priya Bahri

Authors
  1. Priya Bahri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Priya Bahri.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bahri, P. Public Pharmacovigilance Communication. Drug-Safety 33, 1065–1079 (2010). https://doi.org/10.2165/11539040-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11539040-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation