Prescriber perceptions of boxed warnings: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore how boxed warning (BW) information fits within the context of prescribers' overall treatment decision-making and communication with patients. METHODS: In-depth interviews (N = 52) were conducted with primary care providers and specialists. Participants were presented with one of two prescribing scenarios: (1) estrogen vaginal inserts to treat vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) associated with menopause; or (2) direct-acting antivirals (DAA) to treat chronic hepatitis C virus infection (HCV). The semi-structured interviews explored participants' treatment decision-making within the scenario, reactions to current prescribing information for a product within the FDA-approved drug class, as well as their perceptions of BWs generally. RESULTS: Across scenarios, providers described that the BW is only one of several factors that influence treatment decision-making. In the VVA scenario, symptom severity, family history, and experience with nonprescription drugs were raised as common factors that influence prescribing considerations; compared to comorbid infections, viral load, and HCV genotype in the HCV scenario. Perceptions of the DAA BW were generally positive or neutral, as many participants found the information important and appropriate. The VVA BW was viewed less favorably, with many participants stating the BW overstates the risk for this drug. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that BWs are one of several factors that influence providers' treatment decisions, and BW influence largely depends on context. Providers across scenarios expressed notable differences in their perceptions of the risk information provided in the presented BWs; however, across scenarios participants expressed consideration of how patients may perceive the BW.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".