No abstract

Patients received medicines information mostly from healthcare professionals, but safety information was limited. Type of NSAIDs, regularity of NSAID use and age affected receipt of safety information about NSAIDs. Provision of more medicine information is needed, particularly written documents.

The study indicates that, although orthopaedic physicians had positive attitudes towards providing ADR information to patients, improvement is needed in communicating NSAID risk information.

Background There is a high incidence of adverse effects from non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in Thailand, but patients' perceptions and knowledge of NSAID risks is unknown. Objective This study aims to assess patients' perceptions and knowledge of NSAID risks and factors affecting them. Setting University hospital in North-East of Thailand. Method A Cross-sectional study conducted over 4 months, using a self-administered questionnaire. Patients prescribed NSAIDs for at least one month duration from orthopaedic clinic were recruited using systematic random sampling. Main outcome measure Patients' perceptions on NSAID risks, knowledge on risk factors, and their associated factors. Results A total of 474 questionnaires were assessed. Overall perceptions of risks was low (scoring below five on a 0-10 visual analogue scale), with risks associated with the renal system scoring highest. Perceived risk of gastrointestinal problems differed between patients using non-selective and selective NSAIDs (3.47 ± 2.75 vs 2.06 ± 2.98; P < 0.001). Receiving side effect information from a health professional was associated with higher risk perception. Most patients (80 %) identified high doses, renal disease and gastrointestinal ulcer increased risks of NSAIDs, but fewer than half recognized that use in the elderly, multiple NSAID use, drinking, hypertension and cardiovascular disease also increased risk of adverse events. Having underlying diseases and receiving side effect information were associated with 1.6-2.0 fold increased knowledge of NSAID risks. Conclusion Perceptions and knowledge concerning NSAID risks was generally low in Thai patients, but higher in those who had received side effect information. Risk-related information should be widely provided, especially in high-risk patients.

IntroductionThai patients do not routinely receive patient information leaflets (PILs) with medicines, so awareness of safety issues is low. This study aimed: i) to develop Thai PILs for NSAIDs and subject these to user-testing, and ii) to assess the potential value of PILs from the patient perspective and effect on patient knowledge.MethodsFour PILs for NSAIDs were developed and subjected to multiple rounds of user-testing by the general public. Self-administered questionnaires were distributed to orthopaedic out-patients prescribed one of these NSAIDs, assessing knowledge before and after providing a PIL. The follow-up questionnaire also sought use of and views on the PILs using a visual analogue scale (VAS).Results1,240 baseline questionnaires were completed; only 13.5% of patients had good knowledge. 688 patients returned follow-up questionnaires (55.5%), of whom75% had good knowledge. In patients completing both questionnaires, mean knowledge score increased from 6.22±1.40 to 8.42±1.41 (p<0.001). Patients with high educational levels had high baseline scores (OR = 2.728) and showed greatest improvement in knowledge (OR = 5.628). 90% (625) of follow-up respondents indicated they read all information in the PILs. All also agreed that these PILs should distributed to all patients taking NSAIDs. The median VAS score for usefulness was 9.3 (IQR 8.6–10.0).ConclusionsUser-testing of PILs was feasible in a Thai population and enabled the development of acceptable and desirable PILs. PILs could improve patients' knowledge about their medicine, particularly among those with higher educational level. User-tested PILS could meet the need for more written medicine information.