Hiba EL Masri
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Hiba EL Masri has a total of 10 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Samantha A. Hollingworth
School of Pharmacy, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, QLD, Australia
4 shared publications Helen Benham
University of Queensland
3 shared publications- Helen Benham
Department of Rheumatology Princess Alexandra Hospital Brisbane Queensland Australia
3 shared publications - Mieke L. van Driel
General Practice Clinical Unit, The University of Queensland Faculty of Medicine, Herston, Queensland, Australia
3 shared publications Mieke van Driel
University of Queensland
3 shared publicationsSamantha Hollingworth
University of Queensland
3 shared publications
Latest Publications
- 6 May 2025
- Published by University of Queensland Library
Dynamics of patient-based benefit-risk assessment and information seeking for medication decision-making in chronic disease
The University of Queensland's institutional repository, UQ eSpace, aims to create global visibility and accessibility of UQ’s scholarly research.
- 6 May 2025
- Published by University of Queensland Library
Dynamics of patient-based benefit-risk assessment and information seeking for medication decision-making in chronic disease
The University of Queensland's institutional repository, UQ eSpace, aims to create global visibility and accessibility of UQ’s scholarly research.
- 4 June 2024
- Published by University of Queensland Library
People benefit-risk assessment of vaccines: development and validation of methodological filters for use in PubMed and Embase
The University of Queensland's institutional repository, UQ eSpace, aims to create global visibility and accessibility of UQ’s scholarly research.
- 4 June 2024
- Published by University of Queensland Library
People benefit-risk assessment of vaccines: development and validation of methodological filters for use in PubMed and Embase
The University of Queensland's institutional repository, UQ eSpace, aims to create global visibility and accessibility of UQ’s scholarly research.
- Open Access
- 20 September 2022
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Patient Preference and Adherence
- Vol. ume 16, 2609-2637
Dynamics of Patient-Based Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines in Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review
Background: A critical gap exits in understanding the dynamics of patient-based benefit-risk assessment (BRA) of medicines in chronic diseases during the disease journey. Purpose: To systematically review and synthesize current evidence on the changes of patients’ preferences about the benefits and risks of medicines during their disease journey including the influence of disease duration and severity, and previous treatment experience. Methods: A systematic review of studies identified in PubMed and Embase, from inception to November 2020, was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. Articles were eligible if they analyzed adult patient-based BRA of medicines with a chronic disease, based on at least one of the pre-specified dimensions: disease severity, disease duration, or previous treatment experience. Results: A total of 26,228 articles were identified and 105 were eligible for inclusion. Of these, 85 detected a variation in patient-based BRA of medicines with at least one of the pre-specified criteria. Patients with higher disease severity and more treatment experience have increased risk tolerance. It remains inconclusive whether disease duration directly affects the relative importance of a patient’s preference. Conclusion: Factors important for patients’ BRA of their medicines during a chronic disease journey vary more with their clinical situation and previous treatment experience than with time since diagnosis. Due to the importance of these factors on patients’ perspectives and potential impact on their decision-making and eventually their clinical outcomes, there is a need for more studies to assess the dynamics of patients’ BRA in every disease.
- 20 September 2022
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Patient Preference and Adherence
- Vol. ume 16, 2609-2637
Open AccessDynamics of Patient-Based Benefit-Risk Assessment of Medicines in Chronic Diseases: A Systematic Review
Background: A critical gap exits in understanding the dynamics of patient-based benefit-risk assessment (BRA) of medicines in chronic diseases during the disease journey. Purpose: To systematically review and synthesize current evidence on the changes of patients’ preferences about the benefits and risks of medicines during their disease journey including the influence of disease duration and severity, and previous treatment experience. Methods: A systematic review of studies identified in PubMed and Embase, from inception to November 2020, was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. Articles were eligible if they analyzed adult patient-based BRA of medicines with a chronic disease, based on at least one of the pre-specified dimensions: disease severity, disease duration, or previous treatment experience. Results: A total of 26,228 articles were identified and 105 were eligible for inclusion. Of these, 85 detected a variation in patient-based BRA of medicines with at least one of the pre-specified criteria. Patients with higher disease severity and more treatment experience have increased risk tolerance. It remains inconclusive whether disease duration directly affects the relative importance of a patient’s preference. Conclusion: Factors important for patients’ BRA of their medicines during a chronic disease journey vary more with their clinical situation and previous treatment experience than with time since diagnosis. Due to the importance of these factors on patients’ perspectives and potential impact on their decision-making and eventually their clinical outcomes, there is a need for more studies to assess the dynamics of patients’ BRA in every disease.
- Open Access
- 28 November 2021
- Published by University Library System, University of Pittsburgh in Journal of the Medical Library Association
- Vol. 110 (2) , 185–204
Patient-based benefit-risk assessment of medicines: development, refinement, and validation of a content search strategy to retrieve relevant studies
Introduction: Poor indexing and inconsistent use of terms and keywords may prevent efficient retrieval of studies on the patient-based benefit-risk assessment (BRA) of medicines. We aimed to develop and validate an objectively derived content search strategy containing generic search terms that can be adapted for any search for evidence on patient-based BRA of medicines for any therapeutic area. Methods: We used a robust multistep process to develop and validate the content search strategy: (1) we developed a bank of search terms derived from screening studies on patient-based BRA of medicines in various therapeutic areas, (2) we refined the proposed content search strategy through an iterative process of testing sensitivity and precision of search terms, and (3) we validated the final search strategy in PubMed by firstly using multiple sclerosis as a case condition and secondly computing its relative performance versus a published systematic review on patient-based BRA of medicines in rheumatoid arthritis. Results: We conceptualized a final search strategy to retrieve studies on patient-based BRA containing generic search terms grouped into two domains, namely the patient and the BRA of medicines (sensitivity 84%, specificity 99.4%, precision 20.7%). The relative performance of the content search strategy was 85.7% compared with a search from a published systematic review of patient preferences in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. We also developed a more extended filter, with a relative performance of 93.3% when compared with a search from a published systematic review of patient preferences in lung cancer.
- 28 November 2021
- Published by University Library System, University of Pittsburgh in Journal of the Medical Library Association
- Vol. 110 (2) , 185–204
Open AccessPatient-based benefit-risk assessment of medicines: development, refinement, and validation of a content search strategy to retrieve relevant studies
Introduction: Poor indexing and inconsistent use of terms and keywords may prevent efficient retrieval of studies on the patient-based benefit-risk assessment (BRA) of medicines. We aimed to develop and validate an objectively derived content search strategy containing generic search terms that can be adapted for any search for evidence on patient-based BRA of medicines for any therapeutic area. Methods: We used a robust multistep process to develop and validate the content search strategy: (1) we developed a bank of search terms derived from screening studies on patient-based BRA of medicines in various therapeutic areas, (2) we refined the proposed content search strategy through an iterative process of testing sensitivity and precision of search terms, and (3) we validated the final search strategy in PubMed by firstly using multiple sclerosis as a case condition and secondly computing its relative performance versus a published systematic review on patient-based BRA of medicines in rheumatoid arthritis. Results: We conceptualized a final search strategy to retrieve studies on patient-based BRA containing generic search terms grouped into two domains, namely the patient and the BRA of medicines (sensitivity 84%, specificity 99.4%, precision 20.7%). The relative performance of the content search strategy was 85.7% compared with a search from a published systematic review of patient preferences in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. We also developed a more extended filter, with a relative performance of 93.3% when compared with a search from a published systematic review of patient preferences in lung cancer.
- Open Access
- 16 June 2020
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Rheumatology
- Vol. 4 (1) , 1-10
Real-world questions and concerns about disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs): a retrospective analysis of questions to a medicine call center
Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have transformed the treatment of numerous autoimmune and inflammatory diseases but their perceived risk of harm may be a barrier to use. In a retrospective mixed-methods study, we analysed conventional (c) and biologic (b) DMARDs-related calls and compared them with rest of calls (ROC) from consumers to an Australian national medicine call center operated by clinical pharmacists from September 2002 to June 2010. This includes the period where bDMARDs became available on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the government-subsidized prescription medicines formulary. We compared caller and patient demographics, enquiry types and motivation to information-seek for both cDMARDs and bDMARDs with ROC, using a t-test for continuous data and a chi-square test for categorical data. We explored call narratives to identify common themes. There were 1547 calls involving at least one DMARD. The top three cDMARD enquiry types were side effects (27.2%), interactions (21.9%), and risk versus benefit (11.7%). For bDMARDs, the most common queries involved availability and subsidized access (18%), mechanism and profile (15.8%), and side effects (15.1%). The main consumer motivations to information-seek were largely independent of medicines type and included: inadequate information (44%), wanting a second opinion (23.6%), concern about a worrying symptom (18.8%), conflicting information (6.9%), or information overload (2.3%). Question themes common to conventional and biological DMARDs were caller overemphasis on medication risk and the need for reassurance. Callers seeking information about bDMARDs generally overestimated effectiveness and focused their attention on availability, cost, storage, and medicine handling. Consumers have considerable uncertainty regarding DMARDs and may overemphasise risk. Patients cautiously assess the benefits and risks of their DMARDs but when new treatments emerge, they tend to overestimate their effectiveness.
- 16 June 2020
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Rheumatology
- Vol. 4 (1) , 1-10
Open AccessReal-world questions and concerns about disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs): a retrospective analysis of questions to a medicine call center
Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have transformed the treatment of numerous autoimmune and inflammatory diseases but their perceived risk of harm may be a barrier to use. In a retrospective mixed-methods study, we analysed conventional (c) and biologic (b) DMARDs-related calls and compared them with rest of calls (ROC) from consumers to an Australian national medicine call center operated by clinical pharmacists from September 2002 to June 2010. This includes the period where bDMARDs became available on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the government-subsidized prescription medicines formulary. We compared caller and patient demographics, enquiry types and motivation to information-seek for both cDMARDs and bDMARDs with ROC, using a t-test for continuous data and a chi-square test for categorical data. We explored call narratives to identify common themes. There were 1547 calls involving at least one DMARD. The top three cDMARD enquiry types were side effects (27.2%), interactions (21.9%), and risk versus benefit (11.7%). For bDMARDs, the most common queries involved availability and subsidized access (18%), mechanism and profile (15.8%), and side effects (15.1%). The main consumer motivations to information-seek were largely independent of medicines type and included: inadequate information (44%), wanting a second opinion (23.6%), concern about a worrying symptom (18.8%), conflicting information (6.9%), or information overload (2.3%). Question themes common to conventional and biological DMARDs were caller overemphasis on medication risk and the need for reassurance. Callers seeking information about bDMARDs generally overestimated effectiveness and focused their attention on availability, cost, storage, and medicine handling. Consumers have considerable uncertainty regarding DMARDs and may overemphasise risk. Patients cautiously assess the benefits and risks of their DMARDs but when new treatments emerge, they tend to overestimate their effectiveness.
- Open Access
- 26 March 2020
- Published by Springer Nature in Research Square
Real-world questions and concerns about disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs): a retrospective analysis of questions to a medicine call center
Background Disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have transformed the treatment of numerous autoimmune and inflammatory diseases but their perceived risk of harm be a barrier to use.Methods In a retrospective mixed-methods study, we analysed conventional (c) and biologic (b) DMARDs-related calls and compared them with rest of calls (ROC) from consumers to an Australian national medicine call center operated by clinical pharmacists from September 2002 to June 2010. This includes the period where bDMARDs became available on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the government-subsidized prescription medicines formulary. We compared caller and patient demographics, enquiry types and motivation to information-seek for both cDMARDs and bDMARDs with ROC, using a t-test for continuous data and a chi-square test for categorical data. We explored call narratives to identify common themes.Results There were 1,547 calls involving at least one DMARD. The top three cDMARD enquiry types were side effects (27.2%), interactions (21.9%), and risk versus benefit (11.7%). For bDMARDs, the most common queries involved availability and subsidized access (18%), mechanism and profile (15.8%), and side effects (15.1%). The main consumer motivations to information-seek were largely independent of medicines type and included: inadequate information (44%), wanting a second opinion (23.6%), concern about a worrying symptom (18.8%), conflicting information (6.9%), or information overload (2.3%). Question themes common to conventional and biological DMARDs were caller overemphasis on medication risk and the need for reassurance. Callers seeking information about bDMARDs generally overestimated effectiveness and focused their attention on availability, cost, storage, and medicine handling.Conclusion Consumers have considerable uncertainty regarding DMARDs and may overemphasise risk. Patients cautiously assess the benefits and risks of their DMARDs but when new treatments emerge, they tend to overestimate their effectiveness.
- 26 March 2020
- Published by Springer Nature in Research Square
Open AccessReal-world questions and concerns about disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs): a retrospective analysis of questions to a medicine call center
Background Disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have transformed the treatment of numerous autoimmune and inflammatory diseases but their perceived risk of harm be a barrier to use.Methods In a retrospective mixed-methods study, we analysed conventional (c) and biologic (b) DMARDs-related calls and compared them with rest of calls (ROC) from consumers to an Australian national medicine call center operated by clinical pharmacists from September 2002 to June 2010. This includes the period where bDMARDs became available on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the government-subsidized prescription medicines formulary. We compared caller and patient demographics, enquiry types and motivation to information-seek for both cDMARDs and bDMARDs with ROC, using a t-test for continuous data and a chi-square test for categorical data. We explored call narratives to identify common themes.Results There were 1,547 calls involving at least one DMARD. The top three cDMARD enquiry types were side effects (27.2%), interactions (21.9%), and risk versus benefit (11.7%). For bDMARDs, the most common queries involved availability and subsidized access (18%), mechanism and profile (15.8%), and side effects (15.1%). The main consumer motivations to information-seek were largely independent of medicines type and included: inadequate information (44%), wanting a second opinion (23.6%), concern about a worrying symptom (18.8%), conflicting information (6.9%), or information overload (2.3%). Question themes common to conventional and biological DMARDs were caller overemphasis on medication risk and the need for reassurance. Callers seeking information about bDMARDs generally overestimated effectiveness and focused their attention on availability, cost, storage, and medicine handling.Conclusion Consumers have considerable uncertainty regarding DMARDs and may overemphasise risk. Patients cautiously assess the benefits and risks of their DMARDs but when new treatments emerge, they tend to overestimate their effectiveness.
- Open Access
- 28 February 2020
- Published by Springer Nature in Research Square
Real-world questions and concerns about disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs): a retrospective analysis of questions to a medicine call center
Background Disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have transformed the treatment of numerous autoimmune and inflammatory diseases but their perceived risk of harm be a barrier to use.Methods In a retrospective mixed-methods study, we analysed conventional (c) and biologic (b) DMARDs-related calls and compared them with rest of calls (ROC) from consumers to an Australian national medicine call center operated by clinical pharmacists from September 2002 to June 2010. This includes the period where bDMARDs became available on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the government-subsidized prescription medicines formulary. We compared caller and patient demographics, enquiry types and motivation to information-seek for both cDMARDs and bDMARDs with ROC, using a t-test for continuous data and a chi-square test for categorical data. We explored call narratives to identify common themes.Results There were 1,547 calls involving at least one DMARD. The top three cDMARD enquiry types were side effects (27.2%), interactions (21.9%), and risk versus benefit (11.7%). For bDMARDs, the most common queries involved availability and subsidized access (18%), mechanism and profile (15.8%), and side effects (15.1%). The main consumer motivations to information-seek were largely independent of medicines type and included: inadequate information (44%), wanting a second opinion (23.6%), concern about a worrying symptom (18.8%), conflicting information (6.9%), or information overload (2.3%). Question themes common to conventional and biological DMARDs were caller overemphasis on medication risk and the need for reassurance. Callers seeking information about bDMARDs generally overestimated effectiveness and focused their attention on availability, cost, storage, and medicine handling.Conclusion Consumers have considerable uncertainty regarding DMARDs and may overemphasise risk. Patients cautiously assess the benefits and risks of their DMARDs but when new treatments emerge, they tend to overestimate their effectiveness.
- 28 February 2020
- Published by Springer Nature in Research Square
Open AccessReal-world questions and concerns about disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs): a retrospective analysis of questions to a medicine call center
Background Disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have transformed the treatment of numerous autoimmune and inflammatory diseases but their perceived risk of harm be a barrier to use.Methods In a retrospective mixed-methods study, we analysed conventional (c) and biologic (b) DMARDs-related calls and compared them with rest of calls (ROC) from consumers to an Australian national medicine call center operated by clinical pharmacists from September 2002 to June 2010. This includes the period where bDMARDs became available on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the government-subsidized prescription medicines formulary. We compared caller and patient demographics, enquiry types and motivation to information-seek for both cDMARDs and bDMARDs with ROC, using a t-test for continuous data and a chi-square test for categorical data. We explored call narratives to identify common themes.Results There were 1,547 calls involving at least one DMARD. The top three cDMARD enquiry types were side effects (27.2%), interactions (21.9%), and risk versus benefit (11.7%). For bDMARDs, the most common queries involved availability and subsidized access (18%), mechanism and profile (15.8%), and side effects (15.1%). The main consumer motivations to information-seek were largely independent of medicines type and included: inadequate information (44%), wanting a second opinion (23.6%), concern about a worrying symptom (18.8%), conflicting information (6.9%), or information overload (2.3%). Question themes common to conventional and biological DMARDs were caller overemphasis on medication risk and the need for reassurance. Callers seeking information about bDMARDs generally overestimated effectiveness and focused their attention on availability, cost, storage, and medicine handling.Conclusion Consumers have considerable uncertainty regarding DMARDs and may overemphasise risk. Patients cautiously assess the benefits and risks of their DMARDs but when new treatments emerge, they tend to overestimate their effectiveness.
- Open Access
- 20 January 2020
- Published by Springer Nature in Research Square
Real-world questions and concerns about disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs): a retrospective analysis of questions to a medicine call center
Background Disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have transformed the treatment of numerous autoimmune and inflammatory diseases but their perceived risk of harm be a barrier to use. Methods In a retrospective mixed-methods study, we
- 20 January 2020
- Published by Springer Nature in Research Square
Open AccessReal-world questions and concerns about disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs): a retrospective analysis of questions to a medicine call center
Background Disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have transformed the treatment of numerous autoimmune and inflammatory diseases but their perceived risk of harm be a barrier to use. Methods In a retrospective mixed-methods study, we