The Risks And Benefits Of Medicines And Medical Devices

Ipsos was commissioned by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to undertake a qualitative and quantitative programme of research among the general public and a variety of healthcare professionals (HCPs) about perceptions of the risks and benefits associated with medicines and medical devices, and of how well they are regulated and communicated in the UK.

Ipsos was commissioned by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to undertake a qualitative and quantitative programme of research among the general public and a variety of healthcare professionals (HCPs) about perceptions of the risks and benefits associated with medicines and medical devices, and of how well they are regulated and communicated in the UK.

This systematic examination of the general public's and health care professionals' views by MHRA has given them a good steer on levels of confidence in medicines and medical devices and they will be using the results to help target their communications for both the general public and for HCPs.

Key findings from the general public

Focus group discussions showed that the public's opinions are often based on personal experience or the experience of friends and family, but their general approach to taking medicines is cautious. Most of them say they read leaflets about medicines and their side effects. Some say they don't really know until they have tried something for themselves. The discussions also suggested that confidence in medicines and devices stems from an overall confidence in doctors, whom the public trust to weigh up the risks and benefits of medicines and medical devices.

The quantitative surveys showed that;

  • Seven in ten have either taken a medicine on prescription or bought one over-the-counter in the last 12 months. Usage of and contact with medical devices is considerably lower, with almost two-thirds (65%) saying they have not used or come into contact with any medical device or equipment in the last 12 months.
  • Almost 9 in 10 adults in Great Britain are confident about the safety of medicines (88%) and medical devices (83%). Despite this underlying confidence, almost three in ten (28%) say they are concerned about a particular medicine. The most frequently cited reason for concern is worries about side effects.
  • Only 2% spontaneously identify MHRA as the regulator of medicines or devices. The majority (76%) would consult their doctor if they wished to report side effects of medicines, though fewer (47%) would consult their doctor if they wished to report side effects of medical devices -- which is most probably due to the fact that people have less experience with, and know less about medical devices compared to medicines.
  • Over one in five (23%) say they always weigh up the risks and benefits of a medicine before they decide whether to take it or not, and just under one in five (18%) do so for medical devices.
  • In seeking information about the risks and benefits of medicines, 61% have approached doctors and 41% have spoken with pharmacists. Almost 9 out of 10 people (87%) would trust a doctor to provide this kind of information. Pharmacists are also well trusted to provide information (by 64%).

Key findings from Healthcare Professionals

In focus group discussions, pharmacists, hospital physicians and nurses all said that their experience of using a particular medicine or device without any complications was important in gaining confidence. Surgeons gained confidence from their colleagues' recommendations. Though GPs generally have high levels of confidence in medicines and medical devices, they felt that user errors posed the greatest risks.

The quantitative surveys showed that:

  • Almost nine in ten (87%) of GPs think that medicines are adequately regulated in this country. Confidence in adequate regulation of medicines is slightly, but not significantly, lower at 80% among pharmacists. 72% of nurses are confident. Perceived confidence in how well medical devices are regulated is somewhat lower. However, this may be due to the fact that HCPs know less about the regulation of medical devices
  • Pharmacists are most likely to cite MHRA spontaneously as the organisation that regulates medicines (52%), followed by one in five GPs (21%) and fewer physicians and surgeons (11% and 8% respectively).
  • Reporting of problems varies greatly. 85% of GPs and 84% of pharmacists say they would use MHRA and/or a Yellow Card to report an adverse drug reaction and this proportion reduces to 59% among hospital physicians and 26% among nurses. In respect of an incident with a device, 19% of nurses mention an 'Adverse Incident Report Form' and/or MHRA, compared with 20% of surgeons.
  • Healthcare professionals put pharmacists at or near the top of their list of most trusted sources of information around the risks and benefits of medicines.

Reports

Topline Results

Technical details

This program of research involved both qualitative and quantitative research among two audiences: GB general public and Healthcare professionals (HCPs). The details of each stage of the research project are as follows:

General Public Qualitative Research: six focus groups were conducted, supplemented by six in-depth telephone interviews conducted between 25 -- 31 January 2006. Two groups were held in the north (Manchester), two in the midlands (Birmingham) and two in the south (St Albans). Quotas were set for: age, gender, social grade, those who have visited their GP in the last year, those who have had surgery in the last year, those who have used any medicine in the last year and those who have used or experienced devices used in connection with their health. The discussion guide covered both medicines and medical devices.

General Public Quantitative Research: Questions were placed on the Ipsos Omnibus. A nationally representative quota sample of 1,962 adults (aged 15 and over) was interviewed throughout Great Britain. Interviews were carried out face-to-face, in respondents' homes, with the aid of Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) terminals (laptops). Fieldwork was conducted between 16 and 21 March 2006. Data are weighted to match the profile of the Great Britain population. Half of the sample (915) were given version 1 (which focused on medicines) and the other half (1,047) were given version 2 (which focused on medical devices).

HCP Qualitative Research: Five mini-focus groups were conducted with Health Professionals (a different type of health professional for each mini-group), each lasting one and a half hours. These were among: GPs, Surgeons, Hospital Physicians, Nurses and Pharmacists. They were held between 16 -- 24 Jan 2006. The discussion guide covered both medicines and medical devices.

HCP Quantitative Research: Ipsos telephone centre interviewed a total of 500 HCPs between 23 May and 27 June 2006 with the aid of Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI). Representative quota samples were taken from databases of HCPs. Quotas were set for each type of HCP according to gender, age, region and grade. Quotas were set during fieldwork to ensure that sufficient numbers of interviews were carried out among particular groups of each HCP. Data are weighted to match the profile of each HCP in Great Britain.

Related news