Fisher S, Mansbridge B, Lankford D A
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1982 Jun;39(6):707-11. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1982.04290060055011.
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.
作为一项关于给患者提供处方药物书面带回家信息效果的大型研究的一部分,根据“专家”确定的内容编写了一份地西泮的“患者用药指导手册”(PPI)。本报告将专家对应包含信息的判断与公众的判断进行了比较。通过让受试者对包含地西泮相关事实的卡片进行分类,确定了被认为对纳入PPI最重要的信息。以前使用过地西泮的受试者与没有经验的受试者在判断上没有差异。总体而言,公众和专家的判断之间存在高度一致性,并且在非常不同的人口样本中也存在非常强烈的共识。在少数存在分歧的情况下,公众对地西泮的警告和“坏消息”的重视程度甚至高于提供安慰、良性一般教育和“好消息”的信息。患者在何种程度上会有效利用这些信息——无论是通过PPI还是其他教育途径传达——必须等待实证评估。