Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

New drug and medical device introduction in Japan usually lags behind that in the West. Many reports indicate that in Japan, the associated risks are considered greater than the benefits recognized in other countries. This study aimed to compare the relationship between risk-benefit perception and acceptance of medical technologies in 3 leading markets.

Methods:

A tripartite cross-sectional survey of the general public was used. In total, 3345 adults in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Japan participated, and sexes and age groups were equally represented. Questions about the perception of risk, benefit, and acceptance of medical and other scientific technologies, and trust of medical product providers or regulatory authorities were included.

Results:

Five-step Likert coding for risk/benefit/acceptance of 4 medical items (x-rays, antibiotics, vaccines, and cardiac pacemakers) and 6 general items (such as automobiles and airplanes) were collected. Relationships between benefit perception and acceptance were linear for 4 medical technologies. The relationship had a similar slope but was shifted downward in Japan compared with the UK and US (P < .01), suggesting a lower acceptance in Japan for all benefit perceptions. The trend was the same between risk perception and acceptance, except for slopes that were negative. Correspondence analysis showed a strong correlation among acceptance of medical technologies, benefits of medical technologies, trust in doctors, and trust in the Department of Health. The UK and US attributes were clustered with positive responses such as “useful,” “acceptable,” and “trustworthy,” whereas Japan was clustered with intermediate to negative responses such as “neither” and “untrustworthy.”

Conclusions:

Acceptance of medical technologies was low in Japan because of significant differences in trust for doctors and authorities compared with that in the UK and US. This is a possible basis for delays of 24 to 60 months for medical product approval in Japan.

Keywords

drug lag risk benefit perception correspondence analysis regulatory authorities social acceptance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Danzon

Epstein

. Effects of regulation on drug launch and pricing in interdependent markets. Adv Health Econ Health Serv Res. 2012;23:35–71.

Ueno

Asahina

Tanaka

Yamada

Nakamura

Uyama

. Significant differences in drug lag in clinical development among various strategies used for regulatory submissions in Japan. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2014;95:533–541.

Sato

Current topics of pharmaceutical regulatory affairs in Japan

Paper presented at: The 3rd China-Japan Symposium on Drug Development, Beijing, China. https://www.pmda.go.jp/files/000157574.pdf. Published 2012. Accessed April 11, 2017.

Tsuji

Tsutani

. Approval of new biopharmaceuticals 1999-2006: comparison of the US, EU and Japan situations. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2008;68:496–502.

Yamada

Kusama

Hirai

Arnold

Sugiyama

Ono

. Analysis of pharmaceutical safety-related regulatory actions in Japan: do tradeoffs exist between safer drugs and launch delay? Ann Pharmacother. 2010;44:1976–1985.

Jones

RS.

Healthcare Reform in Japan: Controlling costs, improving quality and ensuring equity. http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?doclanguage=en&cote=eco/wkp%282009%2980. OECD Economics Department working papers, No. 739. Washington, DC: OECD Publishing. Published 2009. Accessed April 11, 2017.

Kaitin

Mattison

Northington

Lasagna

. The drug lag: an update of new drug introductions in the United States and in the United Kingdom, 1977 through 1987. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1989;46:121–138.

Goodall

, Tom J. Boston Consulting Group. Regulation and access to innovative medical technologies. http://www.medtecheurope.org/sites/default/files/resource_items/files/01062012_BCG_Regulation%20and%20Access%20to%20Innovative%20Medical%20Technologies_Backgrounder.pdf. Boston, MA: BCG. Published 2012. Accessed April 11, 2017.

Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Information materials regarding medical innovation [in Japanese]. http://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/shingi/2r9852000001f1rr-att/2r9852000001f288.pdf. Published May 19, 2011. Accessed April 11, 2017.

10.

Nakano

Kodama

Kano

. Definition of the device lag and its measurement. Japan J Med Instrument. 2009;79:273–285.

11.

AMDD. Issues regarding to medical device market and idea of solutions. http://www.amdd.jp/en/pdf/technology/Policy110627.pdf. Published 2011. Accessed April 11, 2017.

12.

Kawabata-Shoda

Masuda

Kimura

. Anticancer drug development from traditional cytotoxic to targeted therapies: evidence of shorter drug research and development time, and shorter drug lag in Japan. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2012;37:547–552.

13.

Yonemori

Hirakawa

Ando

. The notorious “drug lag” for oncology drugs in Japan. Invest New Drugs. 2011;29:706–712.

14.

Starr

. Social benefit versus technological risk. Science. 1969;165:1232–1238.

15.

Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Risks and benefits of medicines and medical devices—perceptions, communication and regulation. http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Archive/Polls/mhra-gp-qual.pdf. Published 2006. Accessed April 11, 2017.

16.

Slovic

Peters

Granac

Berger

Dieck

. Risk perception of prescription drugs: results of a national survey. Drug Inform J. 2007;41:81–100.

17.

Gilmour

Kanda

Kusumi

Tanimoto

Kami

Shibuya

. HPV vaccination programme in Japan. Lancet. 2013;382:768.

18.

Saitoh

Okabe

. Current issues with the immunization program in Japan: can we fill the “vaccine gap”? Vaccine. 2012;30:4752–4756.

19.

Gierlach

Belsher

Beutler

. Cross-cultural differences in risk perceptions of disasters. Risk Anal. 2010;30:1539–1549.

20.

Slovic

. Perception of risk. Science. 1987;236:280–285.

21.

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Ethical guidelines for epidemiological research. http://www.lifescience.mext.go.jp/files/pdf/n796_01.pdf. Published 2002. Accessed April 11, 2017.

22.

Office for Human Research Protections. IRB guidebook. https://archive.hhs.gov/ohrp/irb/irb_guidebook.htm. Published 1993. Accessed April 11, 2017.

23.

Department of Health. Governance arrangements for research ethics committees: a harmonised edition. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213753/dh_133993.pdf. Published 2011. Accessed April 11, 2017.

24.

Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. Guideline 2: ethical review committees. International Ethical Guidelines on Epidemiological Studies . Geneva: CIOMS; 2009:7–8.

25.

Le Roux

Rouanet

. Correspondence analysisIn: Le Roux

Rouanet

, eds. Geometric Data Analysis from Correspondence Analysis to Structured Data Analysis. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2004:23–65.

26.

Bates

Valverde

Jr Vogel

Linkov

. Environmental radiation: risk benchmarks or benchmarking risk assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2011;7:400–403.

27.

Kleinhesselink

Rosa

. Cognitive representation of risk perceptions. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 1991;22:11–28.

28.

Ohtsubo

Yamada

. Japanese public perceptions of food-related hazards. J Risk Res. 2007;10:805–819.

29.

Hinman

Rosa

Kleinhesselink

Lowinger

. Perceptions of nuclear and other risks in Japan and the United States. Risk Anal. 1993;13:449–455.

30.

Takeda

Yamaguchi

Yaegashi

. Perceptions and attitudes of Japanese gynecologic cancer patients to Kampo (Japanese herbal) medicines. Int J Clin Oncol. 2012;17:143–149.

31.

Normile

Infectious diseases. First U.S. case of mad cow sharpens debate over testing. Science. 2004;303:156–157.

32.

Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Benefits type and amount of relief system for injury to health with vaccination. http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/wp/wp-hw3/dl/2-086.pdf. Published 2012. Accessed April 11, 2017.

33.

Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/ . Published 2016. Accessed April 11, 2017.

34.

Omer

Orenstein

Koplan

. Go big and go fast—vaccine refusal and disease eradication. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1374–1376.

35.

Schneider

Zimmermann

Diehl

Breitbart

Greinert

. Sunbed use in German adults: risk awareness does not correlate with behaviour. Acta Derm Venereol. 2009;89:470–475.

36.

Hoffmann

del Mar

. Patients’ expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:274–286.

37.

Weber

Hsee

. Cross-cultural differences in risk perception, but cross-cultural similarities in attitudes towards perceived risk. Manage Sci. 1998;44:1205–1217.

38.

Siegrist

. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal. 2000;20:195–203.

39.

Tanaka

. Major psychological factors affecting acceptance of gene-recombination technology. Risk Anal. 2004;24:1575–1583.

40.

Muringai

Goddard

Aubeeluck

. Consumers’ understanding and concerns about bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE): comparison among Canadian, American, and Japanese consumers. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2011;74:1592–1608.

41.

Central Research Services Inc. Survey on “Feelings of Trust for Statesmen, Bureaucrats, Big Companies, Police, etc.” [Japanese]. http://www.crs.or.jp/data/pdf/trust12.pdf. Published 2012. Accessed April 11, 2017.

42.

Uchida

Nakajima

Teshima

. Should Japan’s regulatory reviewers have immunity from lawsuits? Regul Focus. 2010;Sept:47-48.

43.

Sipp

. “Fast-track” drug approvals hit speed bumps in Japan. Nat Med. 2004;10:883.

44.

Tan

. Strategies for reducing consumers’ risk aversion in Internet shopping. J Consumer Marketing. 1999;16:163–180.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB

Impact of Risk-Benefit Perception and Trust on Medical Technology Acceptance in Relation to Drug and Device Lag

Abstract

Background:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusions:

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material