A new systematic review, published in Drug Safety, examines the impact of various methods of communicating drug risks on prescribers’ awareness and understanding of those risks, as well as whether prescribing behaviors change as a result.
The current work, led by Lucy T. Perry from the University of Sydney in Australia, finds that while a few strategies are somewhat successful in reducing adverse drug reaction rates, improving service user health, and improving awareness around drug risks, “no one content or dissemination intervention was wholly effective.”
This research raises questions around drug risk and how prescribers understand and react to interventions designed to improve service users’ health by reducing adverse drug reactions and improper prescriptions. While some strategies can change prescriber behavior to an extent, included studies still showed large percentages of inappropriate prescriptions, in some cases as high as 85%, despite the availability of alerts, risk assessment tools, and educational interventions.
The review highlights a systemic issue: when clinicians fail to receive or act on safety information, informed consent is compromised, and patients remain vulnerable to avoidable harm.
The authors write:
“This systematic review found evidence that the dissemination and the content of medicine risk communications can affect clinicians’ awareness, knowledge, and associated behaviours. Initial evidence supported the impact of content and dissemination of these risk communications to clinicians on patient health outcomes. Most studies of content interventions (8/10) and dissemination interventions (8/10) changed prescribing or clinical assessment and monitoring behaviours. “
You've landed on a MIA journalism article that is funded by MIA supporters. To read the full article, sign up as a MIA Supporter. All active donors get full access to all MIA content, and free passes to all Mad in America events.
Current MIA supporters can log in below.(If you can't afford to support MIA in this way, email us at [email protected] and we will provide you with access to all donor-supported content.)
I came up with a VERY sarcastic synopsis, mostly meant as humour, but who knows.
I was wondering how “scientists” or even “doctors” go on about having intimate relationships, do they ask each other: “Shall we see if we can interact biologically,” and then making we wonder what kinds of tests would be involved. Whether mathematical or involving personality types. BINGO! You would have to go to a psychiatrist and see whether or not your partner is “behaving” in a way that needs adjustment or not! Given that the most prescribed drug is antidepressants, and it HIGHLY interferes with biological relationships, in that a gross number of people can not achieve orgasms or even feel their sexual organs anymore, which may go on for years. THERE you go, antidepressants might be our savior, that biologically they don’t really do what they are supposed to “scientifically” when such people interact, otherwise WHO KNOWS what kind of a system we’d live in. My friend talks about this a bit: https://caroleveretthealingsanctuary.co.uk/a-vision-of-tomorrows-world/ But really!? WHAT kind of tests would be added if the main psychiatric drug prescribed actually did promote biological interactions involving procreation!?, Or just enjoying sex for the comradery!? Would we all be bred like horses, or cows!? Think of the use as labrats that might come out of antidepressants improving sexual function!?
I’ll give them a hand, those amazing aces. Once again they’ve outdone themselves!
Report comment