IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/drugsa/v43y2020i11d10.1007_s40264-020-00977-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pharmaceutical Benefit–Risk Perception and Age Differences in the USA and Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Dominic H. P. Balog-Way

    (Cornell University)

  • Darrick Evensen

    (University of Edinburgh)

  • Ragnar E. Löfstedt

    (King’s College London)

Abstract

Introduction Understanding how patients of all ages perceive the benefits and risks of medical treatments is vitally important. Yet, the role of older age on pharmaceutical benefit–risk perceptions has hardly been empirically investigated as a central focus of study. Objective This study tested the generalizability of recent pilot findings to explore benefit–risk perception age differences between adults aged 65 years old and over (older group) and those aged 18–64 years old (younger group). Methods An online survey representative for age, sex, and education was conducted in Ohio, USA (N = 1520) and Germany (N = 1536). A combination of benefit, risk, and affect questions measured respondents’ perceptions of 18 medicines, tests, vaccines, and procedures. Further questions investigated general perceptions of side effects and effectiveness, as well as respondents’ reliance on different sources of medicines information. Results Clear age differences were found that strongly support recent pilot findings. Older adults perceived prescription medicines significantly more positively than their younger counterparts. They had significantly higher benefit and lower risk perceptions for most, but not all, medical treatments investigated. Older adults’ benefit–risk perceptions were more strongly correlated with positive/negative affect, that is, their positive/negative experiences and feelings of “goodness” or “badness” they associated with each medical treatment investigated. They also perceived doctors and pharmacists as more competent and trustworthy. Contrary to popular belief, both age groups ranked their reliance on 15 different medical (e.g. doctors), societal (e.g. social media), industry (e.g. pharmaceutical company websites), and governmental (e.g. regulatory agencies) sources of medicines information remarkably similarly. Conclusion Age has an important role in patients’ pharmaceutical benefit–risk perceptions. Findings show that, when designing messages, benefit–risk communicators should incorporate age differences. This includes older patients’ positive perceptions of pharmaceuticals, greater reliance on affect, and information seeking versus scanning behaviour. Field experiments are now needed to test the effectiveness of such changes for improving benefit–risk communication practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Dominic H. P. Balog-Way & Darrick Evensen & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2020. "Pharmaceutical Benefit–Risk Perception and Age Differences in the USA and Germany," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 43(11), pages 1141-1156, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:43:y:2020:i:11:d:10.1007_s40264-020-00977-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s40264-020-00977-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-020-00977-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40264-020-00977-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Janet Sultana & Andrea Fontana & Francesco Giorgianni & Silvia Tillati & Claudio Cricelli & Alessandro Pasqua & Elisabetta Patorno & Clive Ballard & Miriam Sturkenboom & Gianluca Trifirò, 2019. "Measuring the Effectiveness of Safety Warnings on the Risk of Stroke in Older Antipsychotic Users: A Nationwide Cohort Study in Two Large Electronic Medical Records Databases in the United Kingdom and," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 42(12), pages 1471-1485, December.
    2. Dominic Way & Hortense Blazsin & Ragnar Löfstedt & Frederic Bouder, 2017. "Pharmaceutical Benefit–Risk Communication Tools: A Review of the Literature," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 15-36, January.
    3. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2003. "Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 241-248, April.
    4. Elena Commodari, 2017. "The Role of Sociodemographic and Psychological Variables on Risk Perception of the Flu," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(3), pages 21582440177, July.
    5. Frederic Bouder & Dominic Way & Ragnar Löfstedt & Darrick Evensen, 2015. "Transparency in Europe: A Quantitative Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1210-1229, July.
    6. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    7. Vicki S. Freimuth & Amelia Jamison & Gregory Hancock & Donald Musa & Karen Hilyard & Sandra Crouse Quinn, 2017. "The Role of Risk Perception in Flu Vaccine Behavior among African‐American and White Adults in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2150-2163, November.
    8. Ali Siddiq Alhakami & Paul Slovic, 1994. "A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1085-1096, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    2. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    3. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    4. Rita Saleh & Angela Bearth & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "“Chemophobia” Today: Consumers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2668-2682, December.
    5. Mei‐Chih Meg Tseng & Yi‐Ping Lin & Fu‐Chang Hu & Tsun‐Jen Cheng, 2013. "Risks Perception of Electromagnetic Fields in Taiwan: The Influence of Psychopathology and the Degree of Sensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 2002-2012, November.
    6. Connor, Melanie & de Guia, Annalyn H. & Quilloy, Reianne & Van Nguyen, Hung & Gummert, Martin & Sander, Bjoern Ole, 2020. "When climate change is not psychologically distant – Factors influencing the acceptance of sustainable farming practices in the Mekong river Delta of Vietnam," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 18(C).
    7. Zhou, Li & Turvey, Calum & Hu, Wuyang & Ying, Ruiyao, 2015. "Fear and Trust: How Risk Perceptions of Avian Influenza Affect the Demand for Chicken," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 202077, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Helena Hansson & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2014. "Decision Making for Animal Health and Welfare: Integrating Risk‐Benefit Analysis with Prospect Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 1149-1159, June.
    9. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    10. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2015. "The role of value in the social acceptance of science-technology," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 305-322, July.
    11. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    12. Michael Greenberg & Charles Haas & Anthony Cox & Karen Lowrie & Katherine McComas & Warner North, 2012. "Ten Most Important Accomplishments in Risk Analysis, 1980–2010," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 771-781, May.
    13. Martina Raue & Lisa A. D'Ambrosio & Carley Ward & Chaiwoo Lee & Claire Jacquillat & Joseph F. Coughlin, 2019. "The Influence of Feelings While Driving Regular Cars on the Perception and Acceptance of Self‐Driving Cars," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 358-374, February.
    14. Nien‐Tsu Nancy Chen, 2015. "Predicting Vaccination Intention and Benefit and Risk Perceptions: The Incorporation of Affect, Trust, and Television Influence in a Dual‐Mode Model," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1268-1280, July.
    15. Hao-Teng Cheng & Ko-Wan Tsou, 2018. "Mitigation Policy Acceptance Model: An Analysis of Individual Decision Making Process toward Residential Seismic Strengthening," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-12, August.
    16. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2005. "Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 199-209, February.
    17. Vicki S. Freimuth & Amelia Jamison & Gregory Hancock & Donald Musa & Karen Hilyard & Sandra Crouse Quinn, 2017. "The Role of Risk Perception in Flu Vaccine Behavior among African‐American and White Adults in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2150-2163, November.
    18. Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John & Fynnwin Prager, 2012. "Flu, Risks, and Videotape: Escalating Fear and Avoidance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 729-743, April.
    19. Caserotti, Marta & Girardi, Paolo & Rubaltelli, Enrico & Tasso, Alessandra & Lotto, Lorella & Gavaruzzi, Teresa, 2021. "Associations of COVID-19 risk perception with vaccine hesitancy over time for Italian residents," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 272(C).
    20. Laura N. Rickard, 2021. "Pragmatic and (or) Constitutive? On the Foundations of Contemporary Risk Communication Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 466-479, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:43:y:2020:i:11:d:10.1007_s40264-020-00977-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40264 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.