A descriptive study evaluating Health Canada's risk communications

Purpose: Risk assessment for natural health products (NHPs) may not be evaluated similarly to therapeutic products by Health Canada in terms of notification of harms to consumers and health professionals. In this descriptive study, we evaluated risk communications (RCs) issued by Health Canada for N...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Bateman, J., Charrois, Theresa, Gardiner, P., Vohra, S.
Format: Journal Article
Published: Wiley Interscience 2011
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/13806
_version_ 1848748444841148416
author Bateman, J.
Charrois, Theresa
Gardiner, P.
Vohra, S.
author_facet Bateman, J.
Charrois, Theresa
Gardiner, P.
Vohra, S.
author_sort Bateman, J.
building Curtin Institutional Repository
collection Online Access
description Purpose: Risk assessment for natural health products (NHPs) may not be evaluated similarly to therapeutic products by Health Canada in terms of notification of harms to consumers and health professionals. In this descriptive study, we evaluated risk communications (RCs) issued by Health Canada for NHPs and for therapeutic products, looking for differences in a number of variables. Methods: Risk communications issued by Health Canada in 2006 were independently evaluated by two investigators for whether the harm was actual or potential, for the seriousness and nature of harm, the origin of report, publication type, and degree of association. Disagreements were brought before a third reviewer for adjudication. Results: During the study period, Health Canada issued 42 RCs for each of NHPs and therapeutic products. Most (86%) NHP RCs were issued for potential harm from contamination and adulteration, whereas 69% of therapeutic product RCs were issued due to actual harms (p < 0.0001). Two deaths had been associated with NHP use, compared with 15 deaths associated with the use of therapeutic products (p = 0.0048). The degree of association between product and harm was higher among NHP RCs compared with that among therapeutic product RCs (p < 0.0001). All reports issued for NHPs originated from foreign sources or Health Canada, whereas 69% of therapeutic product RCs were issued by drug manufacturers. Conclusions: We identified important differences in the RCs issued for NHPs versus those for therapeutic products. Standardized formats for RCs are recommended.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T07:05:09Z
format Journal Article
id curtin-20.500.11937-13806
institution Curtin University Malaysia
institution_category Local University
last_indexed 2025-11-14T07:05:09Z
publishDate 2011
publisher Wiley Interscience
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling curtin-20.500.11937-138062017-09-13T16:07:07Z A descriptive study evaluating Health Canada's risk communications Bateman, J. Charrois, Theresa Gardiner, P. Vohra, S. risk communications regulatory agency natural health products Health Canada complementary and alternative medicine Purpose: Risk assessment for natural health products (NHPs) may not be evaluated similarly to therapeutic products by Health Canada in terms of notification of harms to consumers and health professionals. In this descriptive study, we evaluated risk communications (RCs) issued by Health Canada for NHPs and for therapeutic products, looking for differences in a number of variables. Methods: Risk communications issued by Health Canada in 2006 were independently evaluated by two investigators for whether the harm was actual or potential, for the seriousness and nature of harm, the origin of report, publication type, and degree of association. Disagreements were brought before a third reviewer for adjudication. Results: During the study period, Health Canada issued 42 RCs for each of NHPs and therapeutic products. Most (86%) NHP RCs were issued for potential harm from contamination and adulteration, whereas 69% of therapeutic product RCs were issued due to actual harms (p < 0.0001). Two deaths had been associated with NHP use, compared with 15 deaths associated with the use of therapeutic products (p = 0.0048). The degree of association between product and harm was higher among NHP RCs compared with that among therapeutic product RCs (p < 0.0001). All reports issued for NHPs originated from foreign sources or Health Canada, whereas 69% of therapeutic product RCs were issued by drug manufacturers. Conclusions: We identified important differences in the RCs issued for NHPs versus those for therapeutic products. Standardized formats for RCs are recommended. 2011 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/13806 10.1002/pds.2137 Wiley Interscience restricted
spellingShingle risk communications
regulatory agency
natural health products
Health Canada
complementary and alternative medicine
Bateman, J.
Charrois, Theresa
Gardiner, P.
Vohra, S.
A descriptive study evaluating Health Canada's risk communications
title A descriptive study evaluating Health Canada's risk communications
title_full A descriptive study evaluating Health Canada's risk communications
title_fullStr A descriptive study evaluating Health Canada's risk communications
title_full_unstemmed A descriptive study evaluating Health Canada's risk communications
title_short A descriptive study evaluating Health Canada's risk communications
title_sort descriptive study evaluating health canada's risk communications
topic risk communications
regulatory agency
natural health products
Health Canada
complementary and alternative medicine
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/13806