Dianne C. Berry

University of Reading, Reading, ENG, United Kingdom

Are you Dianne C. Berry?

Claim your profile

Publications (62)151.92 Total impact

  • P. Knapp, D. C. Berry, D. K. Raynor
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Focal points□ Information about side effects is a priority for patients, but current leaflets do not include data about frequency of side effects□ The EU recommends the use of verbal descriptors such as “very common” and “rare” linked to specific incidence rates□ This study shows that people taking medicine who are given verbal descriptors grossly over-estimate side effect incidence□ Verbal descriptors also led to patients perceiving a higher personal risk of getting the side effect, compared with those given the numerical description□ If patients are to be partners in medicine taking they need to understand the level of risk of side effects. Further research is ***eeded to determine how this can be achieved
    International Journal of Pharmacy Practice. 02/2011; 9(S1):6 - 6.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess the level of confidence that rheumatology patients would have in nurse prescribing, the effects on likely adherence and particular concerns that these patients have. In addition, given that information provision has been cited as a potential benefit of nurse prescribing, the present study assessed the extent to which these patients would want an explanation for the selected medicine, as well as which types of information should be included in such an explanation. Nurse prescribing has been successfully implemented in the UK in several healthcare settings. Existing research has not addressed the effects on patients' confidence and likely adherence, nor have patients' information needs been established. However, we know that inadequate medicines information provision by health professionals is one of the largest causes of patient dissatisfaction. Fifty-four patients taking disease-modifying drugs for inflammatory joint disease attending a specialist rheumatology clinic self-completed a written questionnaire. Patients indicated a relatively high level of confidence in nurse prescribing and stated that they would be very likely to take the selected medication. The level of concern was relatively low and the majority of concerns raised did not relate to the nurse's status. Strong support was expressed for the nurse providing an explanation for medicine choice. This research provides support for the prescription of medicines by nurses working in the area of rheumatology, the importance of nurses providing a full explanation about the selected medicines they prescribe for these patients and some indication as to which categories of information should be included. Rheumatology patients who have not yet experienced nurse prescribing are, in general, positive about nurses adopting this role. It is important that nurses provide appropriate information about the prescribed medicines, in a form that can be understood.
    Journal of Clinical Nursing 02/2008; 17(2):266-73. · 1.32 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A two phase study is reported. In the first phase, we asked a number of doctors to rate a list of information categories (identified by Berry, Gillie and Banbury 1995) in terms of how important they felt it was for the items to be included in an explanation to a patient about a drug prescription. In the second phase, we presented a large sample of people with a scenario about visiting their doctor and being prescribed medication, together with an explanation about the prescription which was said to be provided by the doctor. Four different explanations were compared, which were either based on what people in our earlier study wanted to know about drug prescriptions or on what the doctors thought it was important lo tell them. We also manipulated whether or not the explanations conveyed negative information (e.g. about the possible side effects of the medication). The results showed that people 'preferred' the explanations based on what the participants in the earlier study wanted to know about their medicines, rather than those based on what the doctors thought they should be told. They also 'preferred' the explanations that did not convey negative information, rather than those that did convey some negative information. In addition, the inclusion of negative information affected ratings of likely compliance with the prescribed medication.
    Psychology and Health 12/2007; · 2.13 Impact Factor
  • Natalie Lynch, Dianne Berry
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate people's views about the efficacy and specific risks of herbal, over-the-counter (OTC) conventional, and prescribed conventional medicines, and their likelihood of taking a second (herbal or OTC conventional) product in addition to a prescribed medicine. Experiment 1 (1 factor within-participant design); Experiment 2 (1 factor between-participant design). Convenience samples of general population were given a hypothetical scenario and required to make a number of judgements. People believed herbal remedies to be less effective, but less risky than OTC and prescribed conventional medicines. Herbal medicines were not seen as being safer simply because of their easier availability. Participants indicated that they would be more likely to take a herbal medicine than a conventional OTC medicine in addition to a prescribed medicine, and less likely to consult their doctor in advance. People believe that herbal medicines are natural and relatively safe and can be used with less caution. People need to be given clear information about the risks and benefits of herbal medicines if they are to use such products safely and effectively.
    Complementary Therapies in Medicine 07/2007; 15(2):84-91. · 2.09 Impact Factor
  • Dianne C. Berry, Anna E. Hart
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Evaluation is crucial for improving expert system design and performance. This paper stresses the need for considering system evaluation throughout the development process. It highlights the importance of evaluating system usability and discusses key usability issues. A number of basic evaluation methods are described, including interviews, questionnaires, observation, system logging, user diaries, laboratory experiments and field trials. Finally, the paper looks at evaluating systems within organisations, and assessing other long term effects of expert systems.
    Expert Systems 04/2007; 7(4):199 - 207. · 0.77 Impact Factor
  • Elisabetta Bersellini, Dianne Berry
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Three experiments examined the effects of adding information about medication benefits to a short written explanation about a medicine. Participants were presented with a fictitious scenario about visiting the doctor, being prescribed an antibiotic and being given information about the medicine. They were asked to make various judgements relating to the information, the medicine and their intention to take it. Experiment 1 found that information about benefits enhanced the judgements, but did not influence the intention to comply. Experiment 2 compared the relative effectiveness of two different forms of the benefit statement, and found that both were effective in improving judgements, but had no effect on intention to comply. Experiment 3 compared the effectiveness of the two forms of benefit information but participants were told that the medicine was associated with four named side effects. Both types of statement improved ratings of the intention to comply, as well as ratings on the other measures. The experiments provide fairly consistent support for the inclusion of benefit information in medicine information leaflets, particularly to balance concerns about side effects.
    Psychology and Health 12/2006; 22(1):61-82. · 2.13 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Sarah L. Coates, Laurie T. Butler, Dianne C. Berry
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Two experiments investigated the influence of implicit memory on consumer choice for brands with varying levels of familiarity. Priming was measured using a consideration-choice task, developed by Coates, Butler and Berry (2004). Experiment 1 employed a coupon-rating task at encoding that required participants to meaningfully process individual brand names, to assess whether priming could affect participants' final (preferred) choices for familiar brands. Experiment 2 used this same method to assess the impact of implicit memory on consideration and choice for unknown and leader brands, presented in conjunction with familiar competitors. Significant priming was obtained in both experiments, and was shown to directly influence final choice in the case of familiar and highly familiar leader brands. Moreover, it was shown that a single prior exposure could lead participants to consider buying an unknown, and indeed fictitious, brand. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    Applied Cognitive Psychology 11/2006; 20(8):1101 - 1116. · 1.67 Impact Factor
  • Dianne C Berry, Peter Knapp, Theo Raynor
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess the effectiveness of absolute risk, relative risk, and number needed to harm formats for medicine side effects, with and without the provision of baseline risk information. A two factor, risk increase format (relative, absolute and NNH)xbaseline (present/absent) between participants design was used. A sample of 268 women was given a scenario about increase in side effect risk with third generation oral contraceptives, and were required to answer written questions to assess their understanding, satisfaction, and likelihood of continuing to take the drug. Provision of baseline information significantly improved risk estimates and increased satisfaction, although the estimates were still considerably higher than the actual risk. No differences between presentation formats were observed when baseline information was presented. Without baseline information, absolute risk led to the most accurate performance. The findings support the importance of informing people about baseline level of risk when describing risk increases. In contrast, they offer no support for using number needed to harm. Health professionals should provide baseline risk information when presenting information about risk increases or decreases. More research is needed before numbers needed to harm (or treat) should be given to members of the general populations.
    Patient Education and Counseling 11/2006; 63(1-2):89-96. · 2.60 Impact Factor
  • Dianne C. Berry
    Applied Cognitive Psychology 02/2006; 9(7):S1 - S4. · 1.67 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The main aim of the study is to assess the views of people, who have not yet experienced nurse prescribing, to determine their level of confidence in nurse as opposed to doctor prescribing, effects on likely adherence and concerns that they might have. Additionally, the extent to which people would want nurses to provide an explanation for medicine choice and the type of information wanted was examined. Nurse prescribing has been successfully implemented in the UK in a number of healthcare settings. Existing research has not addressed effects on people's confidence and likely adherence, nor have people's information needs been established. However, we know that inadequate medicines information provision by health professionals is one of the largest causes of patient dissatisfaction. A convenience sample of 74 members of the general population self-completed a written questionnaire. In general, people would have confidence in the nurse having prescribed the best medicine and say that they would be very likely to take the medicine. Concerns identified did not specifically relate to the nurses' status. Support is provided for the importance of nurses providing a full explanation about medicines, and some indication about which categories of information should be included. Information about medication side effects was most wanted by participants. Independent and Supplementary Prescribing are pivotal to modernizing the NHS. The current study establishes people's initial views and concerns about nurse prescribing and assesses information needs. Support for initiating follow-on studies with particular patient groups is also provided. People who have not yet experienced nurse prescribing are, in general, positive about nurses adopting this role. It is important that nurses provide appropriate information about the prescribed medicines, in a form that can be understood. This should include information about medication side effects.
    Journal of Clinical Nursing 02/2006; 15(1):22-8. · 1.32 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Dianne C Berry
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Providing effective information about drug risks and benefits has become a major challenge for health professionals, as many people are ill equipped to understand, retain and use the information effectively. This paper reviews the growing evidence that people's understanding (and health behaviour) is not only affected by the content of medicines information, but also by the particular way in which it is presented. Such presentational factors include whether information is presented verbally or numerically, framed positively or negatively, whether risk reductions are described in relative or absolute terms (and baseline information included), and whether information is personalized or tailored in any way. It also looks at how understanding is affected by the order in which information is presented, and the way in which it is processed. The paper concludes by making a number of recommendations for providers of medicines information, about both the content and presentation of such information, that should enhance safe and effective medicines usage.
    Current Drug Safety 02/2006; 1(1):121-6.
  • Dianne C. Berry, Mark Hochhauser
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to assess whether the use of verbal descriptors, such as “common” and “rare” affects peoples perceptions of the risks involved in clinical trials as well as their likelihood of entering into the trial. Participants were required to imagine that they had a serious skin condition and being asked if they would take part in a clinical trial for a new drug. They were provided with some information about the trial and drug, in which the probability of side effects occurring was described using either verbal labels alone or verbal labels with associated numerical values. The results showed that those given just the verbal descriptors were significantly less satisfied with the information, perceived risk to be higher (by a factor of three) and benefit to health to be lower, and indicated that they would be significantly less likely to enter the trial. We recommend that patients are informed about the likelihood of potential risks using verbal terms linked with indicative frequency ranges
    Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science 01/2006; 40(3):249-258.
  • DK Raynor, P Knapp, DC Berry
    Adverse Drug Reactions, Edited by A Lee, 01/2006; Pharmaceutical Press.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to empirically evaluate an embodied conversational agent called GRETA in an effort to answer two main questions: (1) What are the benefits (and costs) of presenting information via an animated agent, with certain characteristics, in a ‘persuasion’ task, compared to other forms of display? (2) How important is it that emotional expressions are added in a way that is consistent with the content of the message, in animated agents? To address these questions, a positively framed healthy eating message was created which was variously presented via GRETA, a matched human actor, GRETA's voice only (no face) or as text only. Furthermore, versions of GRETA were created which displayed additional emotional facial expressions in a way that was either consistent or inconsistent with the content of the message. Overall, it was found that although GRETA received significantly higher ratings for helpfulness and likability, presenting the message via GRETA led to the poorest memory performance among users. Importantly, however, when GRETA's additional emotional expressions were consistent with the content of the verbal message, the negative effect on memory performance disappeared. Overall, the findings point to the importance of achieving consistency in animated agents.
    International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 09/2005; · 1.42 Impact Factor
  • Hedwig M Natter, Dianne C Berry
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study compares relative and absolute forms of presenting risk information about influenza and the need for vaccination. It investigates whether differences in people's risk estimates and their evaluations of risk information, as a result of the different presentation formats, are still apparent when they are provided with information about the baseline level of risk. The results showed that, in the absence of baseline information, the relative risk format resulted in higher ratings of satisfaction, perceived effectiveness of vaccination, and likelihood of being vaccinated. However, these differences were not apparent when baseline information was presented. Overall, provision of baseline information resulted in more accurate risk estimates and more positive evaluations of the risk messages. It is recommended that, in order to facilitate shared and fully informed decision making, information about baseline level of risk should be included in all health communications specifying risk reductions, irrespective of the particular format adopted.
    Psychology Health and Medicine 01/2005; 10(4):326-334. · 1.38 Impact Factor
  • Laurie T Butler, Dianne C Berry
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Over the last two decades interest in implicit memory, most notably repetition priming, has grown considerably. During the same period, research has also focused on the mere exposure effect. Although the two areas have developed relatively independently, a number of studies has described the mere exposure effect as an example of implicit memory. Tacit in their comparisons is the assumption that the effect is more specifically a demonstration of repetition priming. Having noted that this assumption has attracted relatively little attention, this paper reviews current evidence and shows that it is by no means conclusive. Although some evidence is suggestive of a common underlying mechanism, even a modified repetition priming (perceptual fluency/attribution) framework cannot accommodate all of the differences between the two phenomena. Notwithstanding this, it seems likely that a version of this theoretical framework still offers the best hope of a comprehensive explanation for the mere exposure effect and its relationship to repetition priming. As such, the paper finishes by offering some initial guidance as to ways in which the perceptual fluency/attribution framework might be extended, as well as outlining important areas for future research.
    British Journal of Psychology 12/2004; 95(Pt 4):467-87. · 2.37 Impact Factor
  • Hedwig M. Natter, Dianne C. Berry
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Two experiments investigated effects of active processing of risk information on participants' understanding and judgments. It was hypothesized that more active processing would lead to better understanding and differences in affective judgments (e.g. increased satisfaction and reduced perceived risk to health). In both experiments participants were given a written scenario about their being prescribed a fictitious medication. This medication was said to cause side effects in 2% of people who took it. Before answering a series of written questions, participants in the active conditions of both experiments were asked to carry out a reflective task (portraying the size of risk on a bar chart in Experiment 1 and answering a reflective question in Experiment 2). The results showed that active participants rated the likelihood of experiencing possible side effects significantly lower than passive participants (Experiment 1), and that active participants were significantly more satisfied with the information and judged perceived risk to health from taking the medication significantly lower than passive participants (Experiment 2). In both experiments, active participants were significantly more correct in their probability and frequency estimates. The studies demonstrate that active processing of risk information leads to improved understanding of the information given. This has important implications for risk communication. In the context of health, better understanding should lead to improved decision-making and health outcomes. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    Applied Cognitive Psychology 10/2004; 19(1):123 - 135. · 1.67 Impact Factor
  • International Journal of Pharmacy Practice. 09/2004; 12(S1).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To examine beliefs about medication risks and benefits in patients attending a specialist rheumatology clinic for pain-related conditions. Eighty-one patients (37 first attendees and 44 existing clinic patients) completed a written questionnaire which asked about current treatments, perceived effectiveness, main risks and benefits, and compliance. Existing clinic patients perceived medications to be more effective and more risky than did the new patients, although both groups rated risks to be moderately low. The main perceived risks were adverse side-effects, although patients reported only moderately low levels of experiencing such effects. In contrast to some other studies, many of our patients were aware of medication risks and were prepared to accept them provided benefits were seen to be high. Existing clinic patients were more aware of risks and benefits, and reported higher compliance levels than new patients, possibly as a result of the hospital education programme. Future studies should evaluate the effects of the programme more systematically.
    Rheumatology 08/2004; 43(7):901-5. · 4.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
    P Knapp, D K Raynor, D C Berry
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine whether the use of verbal descriptors suggested by the European Union (EU) such as "common" (1-10% frequency) and "rare" (0.01-0.1%) effectively conveys the level of risk of side effects to people taking a medicine. Randomised controlled study with unconcealed allocation. 120 adults taking simvastatin or atorvastatin after cardiac surgery or myocardial infarction. Cardiac rehabilitation clinics at two hospitals in Leeds, UK. A written statement about one of the side effects of the medicine (either constipation or pancreatitis). Within each side effect condition half the patients were given the information in verbal form and half in numerical form (for constipation, "common" or 2.5%; for pancreatitis, "rare" or 0.04%). The estimated likelihood of the side effect occurring. Other outcome measures related to the perceived severity of the side effect, its risk to health, and its effect on decisions about whether to take the medicine. The mean likelihood estimate given for the constipation side effect was 34.2% in the verbal group and 8.1% in the numerical group; for pancreatitis it was 18% in the verbal group and 2.1% in the numerical group. The verbal descriptors were associated with more negative perceptions of the medicine than their equivalent numerical descriptors. Patients want and need understandable information about medicines and their risks and benefits. This is essential if they are to become partners in medicine taking. The use of verbal descriptors to improve the level of information about side effect risk leads to overestimation of the level of harm and may lead patients to make inappropriate decisions about whether or not they take the medicine.
    Quality and Safety in Health Care 07/2004; 13(3):176-80. · 2.16 Impact Factor

Publication Stats

1k Citations
151.92 Total Impact Points


  • 1991–2011
    • University of Reading
      • Department of Psychology
      Reading, ENG, United Kingdom
    • University of Oxford
      Oxford, England, United Kingdom
  • 2004
    • University of Leeds
      • School of Healthcare
      Leeds, ENG, United Kingdom
  • 2003
    • University of Wales
      Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
  • 1999
    • Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro
      • Dipartimento di Informatica
      Bari, Apulia, Italy