This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Correction  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Seymour Fisher, PhD; Bruce Mansbridge, PhD; Alan Lankford, PhD

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1982;39(6):707-711.

Abstract
• As part of a larger study of the effects of giving patients written take-home information with prescription medications, a "patient package insert" (PPI) for diazepam was prepared based on content determined by "experts." This report compares the experts' judgments of what information should be included with judgments obtained from the public. Information judged to be most important for inclusion in a PPI was identified by having subjects sort cards containing facts about diazepam. Subjects who had previously used diazepam were no different in their judgments than inexperienced subjects. In general, there was a high degree of concordance between public and expert judgments and also a remarkably strong consensus across very different demographic samples. In those few instances of disagreement, the public attached even greater importance to warnings and "bad news" about diazepam than to information providing reassurances, benign general education, and "good news." To what extent patients would effectively use this information—whether conveyed by PPIs or alternative educational routes—must await empirical evaluation.

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston.

Footnotes
Accepted for publication Feb 1, 1982.

Reprint requests to Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences. University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX 77550 (Dr Fisher).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?