The Effectiveness of an Educational Brochure as a Risk Minimization Activity to Communicate Important Rare Adverse Events to Health-Care Professionals

Nicolette Bester, Michelle Di Vito-Smith, Theresa McGarry, Michael Riffkin, Stefan Kaehler, Richard Pilot, Robert Bwire, Nicolette Bester, Michelle Di Vito-Smith, Theresa McGarry, Michael Riffkin, Stefan Kaehler, Richard Pilot, Robert Bwire

Abstract

Introduction: Educational brochures are an important tool for communicating risk to health-care professionals. It is important to evaluate the impact of any risk minimization tool to understand the effectiveness of the strategy. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness (i.e., respondents' awareness and understanding of the communication) of a targeted educational brochure distributed to health-care professionals (HCPs) as a risk minimization strategy for the communication of new rare and important adverse events (AEs).

Methods: A prospective, non-interventional, online survey was performed following distribution of a specifically designed brochure highlighting new and important adverse events to a targeted HCP population, consisting of known users of the target medicine, as represented by a commercial database. Predefined multiple-choice survey questions assessed overall HCP awareness of the brochure and understanding and retention of information in those HCPs who reported receiving the brochure.

Results: The educational brochure was sent to a total of 565 HCPs; 121 (21.4%) responded to the survey. The majority of respondents (95.0%) had previously prescribed or dispensed the target medicine. In all, 88 (72.7%) respondents said they had received the educational brochure, of whom 95.5% stated they had at least scanned the main points. More participants who had received the brochure (86.4% to 96.6%) answered the five individual survey questions correctly compared with those who did not (51.5% to 97.0%); this was significant for four out of five questions (P ≤ 0.005). Significantly more HCPs who received the brochure achieved the predefined pass rate (at least four of five questions answered correctly) compared with HCPs who did not receive the brochure (93.2% vs 57.6%, respectively; P = 0.000003).

Conclusions: Distribution of targeted educational brochures may be an effective risk minimization strategy to raise HCP awareness of new rare and important AEs; educational brochures may also be an effective channel for sharing information on how these AEs can be best managed and on the importance and means of reporting AEs.

Funding: Celgene Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia.

Keywords: Abraxane; Australia; Brochure; Education; Health-care professionals; Nab-paclitaxel; Risk management plans; Risk minimization.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Survey participant demographics. (a) Job role, (b) location. ACT Australian Capital Territory, NSW New South Wales, NT Northern Territory, QLD Queensland, SA South Australia, TAS Tasmania, VIC Victoria, WA Western Australia
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Respondents’ awareness of the communication
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Proportion of HCPs who answered/understood the survey questions correctly (a) overall, (b) for each question. HCP health-care professionals

References

    1. Banerjee AK, Zomerdijk IM, Wooder S, Ingate S, Mayall SJ. Post-approval evaluation of effectiveness of risk minimisation: methods, challenges and interpretation. Drug Saf. 2014;37:33–42. doi: 10.1007/s40264-013-0126-7.
    1. Edwards B, Chakraborty S. Risk communication and the pharmaceutical industry: what is the reality? Drug Saf. 2012;35:1027–1040. doi: 10.1007/BF03261989.
    1. Giguère A, Légaré F, Grimshaw J, et al. Printed educational materials: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10:CD004398.
    1. European Medicines Agency. Guideline on good pharmacovigilance practice (GVP). . Accessed 4 Nov 2015.
    1. Council for International Organization of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). Practical approaches to risk minimisation for medicinal products: report of CIOMS working group IX. . Accessed 4 Nov 2015.
    1. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Risk evaluation and mitigation strategy assessments: social science methodologies to assess goals related to knowledge June 7, 2012 Docket No. FDA–2012–N–0408. . Accessed 20 Sept 2015.
    1. Prieto L, Spooner A, Hidalgo-Simon A, Rubino A, Kurz X, Arlett P. Evaluation of the effectiveness of risk minimization measures. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21:896–899. doi: 10.1002/pds.3305.
    1. Soeyonggo T, Locke J, Giudice ME, Alibhai S, Fleshner NE, Warde P. National survey addressing the information needs of primary care physicians: side effect management of patients on androgen deprivation therapy. Can Urol Assoc J. 2014;8:E227–E234. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.1015.
    1. Wang YH, Guy R, Hellard M. The Victorian hepatitis C education program for GPs—an evaluation. Aust Fam Physician. 2009;38:749–752.
    1. Ibrahim JE, Ehsani JP, McInnes JA. The effect of printed educational material from the coroner in Victoria, Australia, on changing aged care health professional practice: a subscriber survey. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58:585–591. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02742.x.
    1. Cook JV, Dickinson HO, Eccles MP. Response rates in postal surveys of healthcare professionals between 1996 and 2005: an observational study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:160. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-9-160.
    1. Wiebe ER, Kaczorowski J, MacKay J. Why are response rates in clinician surveys declining? Can Fam Physician. 2012;58:e225–e228.
    1. Mazzarello S, Clemons M, Graham ID, Jacobs C. Surviving surveys. J Oncol Pract. 2014. doi:10.1200/JOP.2014.001484

Source: PubMed

3
購読する