Current issue

The Korean Society for Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 68 , No. 1
[Paper List]

[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 70-106
Abbreviation: KSJCS
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 30 Apr 2022
Received 11 Feb 2022 Accepted 11 Mar 2022 Revised 01 Apr 2022
https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2022.66.2.002

의약품 부작용 메시지의 구조 및 표현과 복약 비이행 의도 : 인지부하와 지각된 부작용 가능성의 매개효과를 중심으로
모연화** ; 박현순***
**성균관대학교 미디어문화융합대학원 겸임교수 (mofree@naver.com)
***성균관대학교 미디어커뮤니케이션학과 교수 (serenity@skku.edu)

Structure and Expression of Medicine Side Effect Message and Medication Non-adherence : The Mediation Effects of Cognitive Load and Perceived Likelihood
Yeonhwa Mo** ; Hyun Soon Park***
**Adjunct Professor, Graduate School of Culture Management, Sungkyunkwan University (mofree@naver.com)
***Professor, Department of Media and Communication, Sungkyunkwan University, corresponding author (serenity@skku.edu)
초록

의약품 메시지는 법적 절차를 통해 의약품첨부문서의 형태로 공중에게 공개된다. 공개된 의약품 메시지는 다양한 채널을 통해 수용자에게 전달된다. 수용자들은 메시지와 커뮤니케이션 과정을 통해 의약품에 대한 효능 인식과 부작용 인식을 형성한다. 그리고 형성된 인식은 복약 행동에 영향을 미칠 수 있다. 따라서 의약품첨부문서의 의약품 효능 메시지와 부작용 메시지가 수용자에게 어떻게 인식되는지 파악하는 것은 전 세계적인 공중 건강 문제, 구체적으로 복약 비이행 문제를 해결할 수 있는 시작점이 될 수 있다. 본 연구는 이러한 문제 인식을 바탕으로 현재 의약품첨부문서가 수용자에게 어떻게 인식되는지 분석했다. 이를 위해 부작용 메시지 요인을 메시지의 구조와 표현으로 구분했다. 그리고 메시지 구조는 주의분산형과 통합형으로, 메시지 표현은 수리적 표현과 구두적 표현으로 설계하고 요인에 따른 복약 비이행 의도와 메시지 효과 경로를 분석했다. 결과에 따르면, 부작용 메시지 구조는 인지부하를 매개하여 복약 비이행 의도에 영향을 미치고, 부작용 메시지 표현은 지각된 부작용 발생가능성을 매개하여 복약 비이행 의도에 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 구체적으로 부작용 메시지에 신체 기관 정보를 포함하는 경우 인지부하를 높임으로써 복약 비이행 의도를 높였으며, 부작용 가능성을 구두적으로 표현하는 경우 부작용 발생 가능성을 과대 추정 시킴으로써 복약 비이행 의도를 높였다. 이론적으로 본 연구는 인지부하이론과 기준점 효과를 적용하여, 인지부하와 위험인식의 매개효과를 검증하며 왜곡된 부작용 인식이 복약 비이행 의도에 미치는 인지 메커니즘의 모델화를 시도했다. 이러한 시도는 의약 현장의 문제인 복약 비이행을 의약품첨부문서와 수용자의 커뮤니케이션 과정으로 분석하여, 결과적으로 의약품 메시지와 행동 의도와의 관계를 검증했다는 의의를 가진다. 실무적으로 본 연구는 미국과 유럽의 의약품첨부문서 개선안을 실증적으로 검증하여 건강 기관 정책 입안자들에게 의약품 메시지 전략의 방향성을 제안한다. 또한 의약품 메시지가 복약 행동에 미치는 영향을 검증하여 현장의 의, 약료 전문가들의 메시지에 의미 있는 통찰을 제공한다.

Abstract

Medicine messages are disclosed to the public in the form of written information through legal procedures. They are delivered to recipients through various channels. The recipients perceive the efficacy and side effects of medication through these messages and communication channels. This perception can affect their medication behavior. Therefore, understanding how messages related to side effects in written medicine information are perceived by recipients may be a starting point for solving global public health problems, specifically the problem of medication non-adherence. Based on these problems, this study analyzed how current written medicine information is perceived by recipients. In current study side-effect message factors were divided into structure and expression of the message. The message structure was designed with attention-distributed and integration types, and the message expression was designed with numerical and verbal expressions. The intention toward medication nonadherence and the message effect path were analyzed according to the message factors. The results indicated that the side-effect message structure affected medication non-adherence mediated the cognitive load. Furthermore, the expression of the side-effect message affected medication non-adherence, which mediated the perceived likelihood of side effects. Specifically, when body organ information was included in the side-effect message, the intention toward medication nonadherence increased along with the increase in the cognitive load, and when the perceived likelihood of side effects was verbally expressed, the intention toward medication non-adherence was overestimated. Theoretically, this study expanded the cognitive load theory and anchoring effect to include side-effect messages. Specifically, the mechanism of perception of distorted side effects was explained by cognitive load and the anchoring effect. These attempts are meaningful in that they analyzed medication non-adherence, which is a problem in the practical field, as a communication process between written medicine information and the recipient. They verified the theoretical validity of the message effect. In practice, this study empirically verified the improvement draft in the foreign written medicine information section and proposed the direction of medicine messages to policy makers of health institutions. It also verified the relationship between medicine messages and medication behavior to provide meaningful insights to field medical and pharmaceutical experts. This study demonstrated that side effect message structure and expression on the written medicine information can impair message recipient health outcomes. Currently, in Korea, despite the difference in the ability of the general public and experts to understand health information, they are exposed to the written medicine information in the same form. However, the United States, Europe, and Australia distinguish between medicine information written for medical professionals and that written for patients. Therefore this study suggested the need for the improvement of written medicine information centered on the message recipient.

KeywordsWritten Medicine Information, Side Effect Message, Medication Nonadherence, Cognitive Load Theory, Anchoring Effect
키워드: 의약품첨부문서, 부작용 메시지, 복약 비이행, 인지부하이론, 기준점 효과
Acknowledgments

This study is based on Yeonhwa Mo’s Ph.D. dissertation from Sungkyunkwan University in 2022 (이 논문은 제1저자의 2022학년도 성균관대학교 박사학위논문을 수정·보완한 것임).

References
1. Abegaz, T. M., Shehab, A., Gebreyohannes, E. A., Bhagavathula, A. S., & Elnour, A. A. (2017). Nonadherence to antihypertensive drugs: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine, 96(4), 1-9.
2. An, S. T., & Jeong, J. S. (2019). Social support and health-related online activities among older adults: Assessing the mediating role of empowerment and the moderating role of health literacy. Korean Journal of Broadcasting and Telecommunications Studies, 33(5), 163-190.
3. Arts, D. L., Voncken, A. G., Medlock, S., Abu-Hanna, A., & Van Weert, H. C. (2016). Reasons for intentional guideline non-adherence: A systematic review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 89, 55-62.
4. Aungst, T. (2018, June 1). Does Nonadherence Really Cost the Health Care System $300 Billion Annually? https://www.pharmacytimes.com/view/does-nonadherence-really-cost-the-health-care-system-300-billion-annually
5. Berry, D., Knapp, P., & Raynor, T. (2002a). Is 15 per cent very common? Informing people about the risks of medication side effects. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 10(3), 145-151.
6. Berry, D., Knapp, P., & Raynor, T. (2002b). Provision of information about drug side-effects to patients. Lancet, 359(9309), 853-854.
7. Berry, D., Michas, I., & Bersellini, E. (2002). Communicating information about medication side effects: Effects on satisfaction, perceived risk to health, and intention to comply. Psychology & Health, 17(3), 247-267.
8. Berry, D., Raynor, T., & Knapp, P. (2003). Communicating risk of medication side effects: An empirical evaluation of EU recommended terminology. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 8(3), 251-263.
9. Brown, M. T., Bussell, J., Dutta, S., Davis, K., Strong, S., & Mathew, S. (2016). Medication adherence: Truth and consequences. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 351(4), 387-399.
10. Buechter, R. B., Fechtelpeter, D., Knelangen, M., Ehrlich, M., & Waltering, A. (2014). Words or numbers? Communicating risk of adverse effects in written consumer health information: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 14(76).
11. Carroll, S. R., Petrusic, W. M., & Leth-Steensen, C. (2009). Anchoring effects in the judgment of confidence: Semantic or numeric priming? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71(2), 297-307.
12. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1992). The split-attention effect as a factor in the design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62(2), 233-246.
13. Cierniak, G., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2009). Explaining the split-attention effect: Is the reduction of extraneous cognitive load accompanied by an increase in germane cognitive load? Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 315-324.
14. European Commission (2009, January 12). Guideline on the readability of the labelling and package leaflet of medicinal products for human use (Revision 1).
15. Fraser, K. L., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2015). Cognitive load theory for the design of medical simulations. Simulation in Healthcare, 10(5), 295-307.
16. Galesic, M., Gigerenzer, G., & Straubinger, N. (2009). Natural frequencies help older adults and people with low numeracy to evaluate medical screening tests. Medical Decision Making, 29(3), 368-371.
17. Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451-482.
18. Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U. (1995). How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats. Psychological Review, 102(4), 684-704.
19. Grime, J., Blenkinsopp, A., Raynor, D. K., Pollock, K., & Knapp, P. (2007). The role and value of written information for patients about individual medicines: A systematic review. Health Expectations, 10(3), 286-298.
20. Hamrosi, K., Raynor, D., & Aslani, P. (2014). Pharmacist, general practitioner and consumer use of written medicine information in Australia: Are they on the same page? Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 10(4), 656-668.
21. Herber, O. R., Gies, V., Schwappach, D., Thurmann, P., & Wilm, S. (2014). Patient information leaflets: Informing or frightening? A focus group study exploring patients' emotional reactions and subsequent behavior towards package leaflets of commonly prescribed medications in family practices. BMC Family Practice, 15(1), 163.
22. Horne, R., Chapman, S. C., Parham, R., Freemantle, N., Forbes, A., & Cooper, V. (2013a). Understanding patients’ adherence-related beliefs about medicines prescribed for long-term conditions: A meta-analytic review of the necessity-concerns framework. PLoS ONE, 8(12), e80633.
23. Horne, R., Faasse, K., Cooper, V., Diefenbach, M. A., Leventhal, H., Leventhal, E., & Petrie, K. J. (2013b). The Perceived Sensitivity to Medicines (PSM) scale: An evaluation of validity and reliability. British Journal of Health Psychology, 18(1), 18-30.
24. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press.
25. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
26. Knapp, P., Gardner, P. H., Carrigan, N., Raynor, D. K., & Woolf, E. (2009). Perceived risk of medicine side effects in users of a patient information website: A study of the use of verbal descriptors, percentages and natural frequencies. British Journal of Health Psychology, 14(3), 579-594.
27. Lee, J., & Jo, I.H. (2020) The effects of visual cueing and learner’s matacognition levels on cognitive load in text-based multimidia learning. The Journal of Educational Information and Media, 26(3), 539-565.
28. Lee, S., & Park, H. S. (2013). Effects of message framing and anchoring on reaching public consensus on the Korea-US FTA issue. Communication Research, 40(2), 176-192.
29. Lipkus, I. M., Samsa, G., & Rimer, B. K. (2001). General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Medical Decision Making, 21(1), 37-44.
30. Luk, A., & Aslani, P. (2011). Tools used to evaluate written medicine and health information: Document and user perspectives. Health Education & Behavior, 38(4), 389-403.
31. Mentz, R. J., Greiner, M. A., Muntner, P., Shimbo, D., Sims, M., Spruill, T. M., ... & Winters, K. (2018). Intentional and unintentional medication non-adherence in African Americans: Insights from the Jackson Heart Study. American Heart Journal, 200, 51-59.
32. Mukhtar, O., Weinman, J., & Jackson, S. H. (2014). Intentional non-adherence to medications by older adults. Drugs & Aging, 31(3), 149-157.
33. Mussweiler, T., Englich, B., & Strack, F. (2004). 10 anchoring effect. Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgment and memory, 183-200, Psychology Press.
34. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2001). The semantics of anchoring. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 234-255.
35. Nafradi, L., Galimberti, E., Nakamoto, K., & Schulz, P. J. (2016). Intentional and unintentional medication non-adherence in hypertension: The role of health literacy, empowerment and medication beliefs. Journal of Public Health Research, 5(3), 111-115.
36. Norman, C. D., & Skinner, H. A. (2006). eHealth literacy: Essential skills for consumer health in a networked world. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 8(2), e9.
37. Orru, G., & Longo, L. (2018, September). The evolution of cognitive load theory and the measurement of its intrinsic, extraneous and germane loads: A review. In International Symposium on Human Mental Workload: Models and Applications (pp. 23-48). Cham: Springer.
38. Osterberg, L., & Blaschke, T. (2005). Adherence to medication. New England Journal of Medicine, 353(5), 487-497.
39. Paas, F. G. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429-434.
40. Park, I. (2020) Effects of psychological distance and message frame on attitude toward the policy, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea.
41. Patel, H. K., Bapat, S. S., Bhansali, A. H., & Sansgiry, S. S. (2018). Development of prescription drug information leaflets: Impact of cognitive effort and patient involvement on prescription medication information processing. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 52(1), 118-129.
42. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 69-81.
43. Pociask, F. D., & Morrison, G. R. (2008). Controlling split attention and redundancy in physical therapy instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(4), 379-399.
44. Pouw, W., Rop, G., De Koning, B., & Paas, F. (2019). The cognitive basis for the split-attention effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(11), 2058-2075.
45. Rho, J., & Jo, I. H. (2020). The relation between the level of cognitive load and academic achievement in relation to the task complecity and problem-midality in computer based test. Jouranl of Educational Technology, 36(1), 137-161.
46. Ryu, J., & Lim, T. (2010). The effects of screen design and motivational message on cognitive load in expository text. Korean Society of Educational Technology, 26(3), 125-157.
47. Slovic, P. (2010). The feeling of risk: New perspectives on risk perception. Routledge.
48. Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333-1352.
49. Simon, H. A. (1972). Theories of bounded rationality. Decision and Organization, 1(1), 161-176.
50. Statista (2021, February 4). Total number of retail prescriptions filled annually in the U.S. 2013-2025. https://www.statista.com/statistics/261303/total-number-of-retail-prescriptions-filled-annually-in-the-us/
51. Sul, S., Kim, J., & Choi, I. (2013). Subjective well-being and hedonic editing: How happy people maximize joint outcomes of loss and gain. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(4), 1409-1430.
52. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Intrinsic and extraneous cognitive load. In Cognitive load theory (pp. 57-69). Springer, New York, NY.
53. Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119(2), 176-192.
54. Szulewski, A., Howes, D., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2020). From theory to practice: The application of cognitive load theory to the practice of medicine. Academic Medicine, 96(1), 24-30.
55. Thaler, R. H. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199-214.
56. Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(3), 183-206.
57. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207-232.
58. Unni, E. J., & Farris, K. B. (2011). Unintentional non-adherence and belief in medicines in older adults. Patient Education and Counseling, 83(2), 265-268.
59. Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Sweller, J. (2010). Cognitive load theory in health professional education: Design principles and strategies. Medical Education, 44(1), 85-93.
60. Viswanathan, M., Golin, C. E., Jones, C. D., Ashok, M., Blalock, S. J., Wines, R. C., ... & Lohr, K. N. (2012). Interventions to improve adherence to self-administered medications for chronic diseases in the United States: A systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 157(11), 785-795.
61. Vrijens, B., Vincze, G., Kristanto, P., Urquhart, J., & Burnier, M. (2008). Adherence to prescribed antihypertensive drug treatments: Longitudinal study of electronically compiled dosing histories. BMJ, 336(7653), 1114-1117.
62. Weinman, J., Graham, S., Canfield, M., Kleinstauber, M., Perera, A. I., Dalbeth, N., & Petrie, K. J. (2018). The Intentional Non-Adherence Scale (INAS): Initial development and validation. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 115, 110-116.
63. Wilhelm, M., Rief, W., & Doering, B. K. (2018). It's all a matter of necessity and concern: A structural equation model of adherence to antihypertensive medication. Patient Education and Counseling, 101(3), 497-503.
64. Wong, K. F. E., & Kwong, J. Y. Y. (2000). Is 7300 m equal to 7.3 km? Same semantics but different anchoring effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(2), 314-333.
65. Wroe, A. L. (2002). Intentional and unintentional nonadherence: A study of decision making. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 25(4), 355-372.
66. Yuan, H.-C. T., Raynor, D. K., & Aslani, P. (2019). Comparison of international regulations for written medicine information (WMI) on prescription medicines. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 53(2), 215-226.
부록
1. 노재희·조일현 (2020). 컴퓨터 기반 문제풀이 환경에서 문제양식, 과제복합도 수준에 따른 인지부하의 측정과 학업성취도 간의 관계. <교육공학연구>, 36권 1호, 137-161.
2. 류지헌·임태형 (2010). 텍스트 중심의 읽기 자료에서 화면 배치유형과 동기 메시지가 인지부하에 미치는 영향. <교육공학연구>, 26권 3호, 125-157.
3. 박인호 (2020). <정책에 대한 심리적 거리감과 메시지 프레임이 정책 관련 태도에 미치는 영향>. 성균관대학교 미디어커뮤니케이션대학원 박사학위 논문.
4. 안순태·정재선 (2019). 노인들의 사회적 지지와 온라인 건강정보행동: 임파워먼트의 매개효과와 헬스 리터러시의 조절효과를 중심으로. <한국방송학보>, 33권 5호, 163-190.
5. 이정은·조일현 (2020). 텍스트 기반 멀티미디어 학습에서 시각적 단서와 학습자 메타인지 수준이 인지부하에 미치는 영향. <교육정보미디어연구>, 26권 3호, 539-565.