Berry, D. C., Michas, I. C., & Bersellini, E. (2003). Communicating information about medication: The benefits of making it personal. Psychology and Health, 18(1), 127-139.

Berry, D.; Michas, I.; Bersellini, E.

2003

Berry, D. C., Michas, I. C., & Bersellini, E. (2003). Communicating information about medication: The benefits of making it personal. Psychology and Health, 18(1), 127-139.

1

Two experiments, using a controlled empirical methodology, investigated the effects of presenting information about medicines using a more personalised style of expression. In both studies, members of the general public were given a hypothetical scenario about visiting the doctor, being diagnosed with a particular illness, and being prescribed a medication. They were also given a written explanation about the medicine and were asked to provide ratings on a number of measures, including satisfaction, perceived risk to health, and intention to comply. In Experiment 1 the explanation focused only on possible side effects of the medicine, whereas in Experiment 2 a fuller explanation was provided, which included information about the illness, prescribed drug, its dosage and contraindications as well as its side effects. In both studies, use of a more personalised style resulted in significantly higher ratings of satisfaction and significantly lower ratings of likelihood of side effects occurring and of perceived risk to health. In Experiment 2 it also led to significantly improved recall for the written information.

The findings of this experiment were very clear cut. Participants who received the personalised version of the explanation about the drug’s side effects gave significantly higher ratings of satisfaction with the explanation, and significantly lower ratings of likelihood of experiencing the side effects and perceived risk than participants who received the non-personalised version. Thus, a minor change in wording in four sentences (of a five-sentence explanation) was sufficient to lead to significant differences on three of the four measures. Although the personalised explanation was associated with numerically higher ratings of intention to comply, the difference between groups was not statistically reliable.

95

2