Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBhasale, A
dc.contributor.authorSarpatwari, A
dc.contributor.authorLipworth, W
dc.contributor.authorMøllebæk, M
dc.contributor.authorMcEwin, E
dc.contributor.authorGautam, N
dc.contributor.authorSantiago, O
dc.contributor.authorMintzes, B
dc.date.accessioned2021-10-05T05:15:27Z
dc.date.available2021-10-05T05:15:27Z
dc.date.issued2021en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2123/26322
dc.description.abstractAim Medicines regulators issue post-market safety warnings to advise of newly uncovered risks, but with mixed impacts. We aimed to identify factors influencing the use of regulatory warnings by primary care and specialist physicians in the US and Australia. Methods Semi-structured qualitative interviews with 40 primary care physicians, endocrinologists, and other generalist specialists in Boston USA and Australia. Coding and analysis were carried out inductively and iteratively to identify and examine key factors. Analysis centred around four areas; physicians’ awareness of drug safety information, preferred information sources, opinion-forming, and sharing of information with patients. Results Uncertainty, trust, and clinical authority emerged as factors influencing use of advisories. Although regulators were trusted as authoritative institutions, they appeared to lack clinical authority, and physicians validated regulatory information against other trusted sources including evidence, expert opinion, and experience. Specialists became aware of drug safety issues through specialised literature, using evidence and clinical consensus to form opinions. Primary care physicians, fielding high volumes of information, relied on convenient, accessible information sources including the media and the ‘clinical grapevine’ for awareness, and on clinical colleagues, specialists, and experience for interpretation. Communicating risk to patients was complicated by uncertainty; physicians tailored information to patients’ health literacy and information needs. US physicians were more aware of their national regulator’s post-market safety role than Australian physicians of theirs. Conclusion Drug safety warnings may not be optimally received or used. Regulators should consider strategies that increase trust, clinical relevance, and accessibility, and address physicians’ needs in communicating risk to patients.en_AU
dc.language.isoenen_AU
dc.publisherWileyen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacologyen_AU
dc.subjectdrug safetyen_AU
dc.subjectpharmacovigilanceen_AU
dc.subjectprescriber attitudesen_AU
dc.subjectqualitative methodsen_AU
dc.subjectrisk communicationen_AU
dc.titleRegulatory authority and clinical acceptability: Physicians’ responses to regulatory drug safety warningsen_AU
dc.typeArticleen_AU
dc.subject.asrc440706 Health policyen_AU
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/bcp.15007
dc.relation.nhmrcAPP 1122332
dc.rights.other"This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Bhasale, AL, Sarpatwari, A, Lipworth, W, et al. Regulatory authority and clinical acceptability: Physicians' responses to regulatory drug safety warnings. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2021; 1- 10, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.15007. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.en_AU
usyd.facultySeS faculties schools::Faculty of Medicine and Health::Sydney Health Ethicsen_AU
workflow.metadata.onlyNoen_AU


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.