The Additional Value of an E-Mail to Inform Healthcare Professionals of a Drug Safety Issue: A Randomized Controlled Tri
- PDF / 357,975 Bytes
- 9 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 88 Downloads / 183 Views
SHORT COMMUNICATION
The Additional Value of an E-Mail to Inform Healthcare Professionals of a Drug Safety Issue: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the Netherlands Sigrid Piening • Pieter A. de Graeff • Sabine M. J. M. Straus • Flora M. Haaijer-Ruskamp Peter G. M. Mol
•
Ó Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013
Abstract 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 Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40264-013-0079-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. S. Piening (&) P. A. de Graeff F. M. Haaijer-Ruskamp P. G. M. Mol Department of Clinical Pharmacology, FB20, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, P.O. Box 196, 9700 AD Groningen, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] P. G. M. Mol e-mail: [email protected]
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,
Data Loading...
