Factors associated with spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting among healthcare professionals in Vietnam

Factors Associated with Underreporting of Adverse Drug Reactions by Health Care Professionals: A Systematic Review Update

INTRODUCTION

Underreporting is a major limitation of the voluntary reporting system of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). A 2009 systematic review showed the knowledge and attitudes of health professionals were strongly related with underreporting of ADRs.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to update our previous systematic review to determine factors (sociodemographic, knowledge and attitudes) associated with the underreporting of ADRs by healthcare professionals.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for studies published between 2007 and 2021 that met the following inclusion criteria: (1) published in English, French, Portuguese or Spanish; (2) involving health professionals; and (3) the goal was to evaluate factors associated with underreporting of ADRs through spontaneous reporting.

RESULTS

Overall, 65 papers were included. While health professional sociodemographic characteristics did not influence underreporting, knowledge and attitudes continue to show a significant effect: (1) ignorance (only serious ADRs need to be reported) in 86.2%; (2) lethargy (procrastination, lack of interest, and other excuses) in 84.6%; (3) complacency (the belief that only well tolerated drugs are allowed on the market) in 46.2%; (4) diffidence (fear of appearing ridiculous for reporting merely suspected ADRs) in 44.6%; and (5) insecurity (it is nearly impossible to determine whether or not a drug is responsible for a specific adverse reaction) in 33.8%, and the absence of feedback in 9.2%. In this review, the non-obligation to reporting and confidentiality emerge as new reasons for underreporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Attitudes regarding the reporting of adverse reactions continue to be the main determinants of underreporting. Even though these are potentially modifiable factors through educational interventions, minimal changes have been observed since 2009.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number CRD42021227944.

Factors that influence patient and public adverse drug reaction reporting: a systematic review using the theoretical domains framework

BACKGROUND

Only 5-10% of all adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are reported. Mechanisms to support patient and public reporting offer numerous advantages to health care systems including increasing reporting rate. Theory-informed insights into the factors implicated in patient and public underreporting are likely to offer valuable opportunity for the development of effective reporting-interventions and optimization of existing systems.

AIM

To collate, summarize and synthesize the reported behavioral determinants using the theoretical domains framework (TDF), that influence patient and public reporting of ADRs.

METHOD

Cochrane, CINAHL, Web of science, EMBASE and PubMed were systematically searched on October 25th, 2021. Studies assessing the factors influencing public or patients reporting of ADRs were included. Full-text screening, data extraction and quality appraisal were performed independently by two authors. Extracted factors were mapped to TDF.

RESULTS

26 studies were included conducted in 14 countries across five continents. Knowledge, social/professional role and identity, beliefs about consequences, and environmental context and resources, appeared to be the most significant TDF domains that influenced patient and public behaviors regarding ADR reporting.

CONCLUSION

Studies included in this review were deemed of low risk of bias and allowed for identification of key behavioural determinants, which may be mapped to evidence-based behavioral change strategies that facilitate intervention development to enhance rates of ADR reporting. Aligning strategies should focus on education, training and further involvement from regulatory bodies and government support to establish mechanisms, which facilitate feedback and follow-ups on submitted reports.

Effectiveness of a structured stimulated spontaneous safety monitoring of medicines reporting program in strengthening pharmacovigilance system in Tanzania

Under-reporting of adverse drug events (ADEs) is a challenge facing developing countries including Tanzania. Given the high magnitude of under-reporting, it was necessary to develop and assess the effectiveness of a ‘structured stimulated spontaneous safety monitoring’ (SSSSM) reporting program of ADEs which aimed at strengthening pharmacovigilance system in Tanzania. A quasi-experimental design and data mining technique were used to assess the effect of intervention after the introduction of program in seven tertiary hospitals. ADEs reports were collected from a single group and compared for 18 months before (July 2017 to December, 2018) and after the program (January 2019 to June 2020). Out of 16,557 ADEs reports, 98.6% (16,332) were reported after intervention and 0.1% (23) death related to adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were reported. Reports increased from 20 to 11,637 after intervention in Dar es salaam, 49 to 316 in Kilimanjaro and 17 to 77 in Mbeya. The population-based reporting ratio per 1,000,000 inhabitants increased from 2 reports per million inhabitants in 2018 to 85 reports in 2019. The SSSSM program can increase the reporting rate of ADEs and was useful in detecting signals from all types of medicines. This was first effective developed spontaneous program to monitor medicine safety in Tanzania.

Quality of Active versus Spontaneous Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions in Pediatric Patients: Relevance for Pharmacovigilance and Knowledge in Pediatric Medical Care

For drug safety in pediatric patients, knowledge about adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is essential to balance benefits and risks, especially because of the high incidence of off-label drug use. However, underreporting of ADRs is a serious problem, leading to a deficit in knowledge affecting clinical practice. The aim of this study is to find a method by which we can improve the quantity of ADR reporting while maintaining or improving the quality of the ADR reports. This was done in several steps. First, health care providers were educated to increase awareness of ADRs. Thereafter, a novel active supporting system was introduced, where reporting ADRs was simplified; if clinical physicians suspected an ADR, they only had to send the name or hospital number of the patient, the observed ADR, and the suspected drug to a supportive team. This team collects all information needed about the possible ADR from the patient’s medical records and hospital charts. With this information, the supportive team fills in the forms necessary for reporting ADRs to the nationwide pharmacovigilance centre Lareb. With this system, the quantity of ADR reports from both inpatients and outpatients rose dramatically. Subsequently, the quality of the obtained ADR reports was measured using the ClinDoc and vigiGrade systems. This study shows there is no loss of quality of the ADR reports in the active reporting system compared to spontaneous reporting systems. Based on the data of the present study, we suggest that an active reporting system has the potential to increase our knowledge about ADRs in pediatric patients.

A logistic regression model based on inpatient health records to predict drug-induced liver injury caused by ramipril—An angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is a rare side effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs). Ramipril is a widely used ACE compound because of its effectiveness in the treatment of hypertension and heart failure, as well as its low risk of adverse effects. However, the clinical features of ramipril, and the risk of DILI, have not been adequately studied. A retrospective cohort study was performed based on data from 3909 inpatients to compare the risk of DILI conferred by ramipril and other ACEIs. A logistic regression model was then constructed and validated against data from 1686 patients using ramipril, of which 117 patients were diagnosed with DILI. The use of ramipril increased the risk of DILI by 2.68 times (odds ratio = 2.68; 95% confident interval (CI):1.96–3.71) compared with the group using other ACEIs. The clinical features of DILI in the ramipril group were similar to those from the ACEI group (P>0.05), except that the ALT level was higher (P<0.05). A logistic regression model including Body mass index (BMI), comorbidity, liver disease, daily dose, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) was built and successfully validated for DILI risk prediction, with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the model of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.752–0.888). We recommend that clinicians should be aware of the levels of ALT and ALP as well as BMI, comorbidities, and liver disease before prescribing ramipril to avoid the risk of DILI in patients.

Barriers of healthcare professionals in utilizing the service of drugs and poison information Centre: A cross-sectional study

Background

Health care professionals (HCPs) have been using drugs and poison information centre (DIC) less frequently in recent years. The purpose of this study was to identify the barriers that inhibit HCPs from using the DIC service in a tertiary care hospital, as well as the factors that assist HCPs in using DIC more effectively.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted among HCPs in Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai. HCPs were given a semi-structured questionnaire that was developed and validated by a subject expert, a public health expert, and a clinical psychologist, and their barriers and facilitators in accessing drug information services were recorded.

Findings

A total of 405 HCPs responded to the survey. Among the identified barriers, the top 3 were: HCPs found it easier to use mobile internet (31%) and the department's reference library (25%) instead of contacting DIC for any drug/poison information. In addition, 17% of HCPs stated that they were too busy. The factors that may assist HCPs utilize DIC more effectively were more awareness is required to demonstrate the functionalities of DIC (24%), and a mobile application is required (23%).

Conclusion

Today's HCPs have easy access to a variety of drug information resources, and many prefer to do their own drug/poison research. As current generation HCPs find it more convenient to use mobile internet than contacting DIC, the creation of a mobile application for drug information service may enhance the number of questions from HCPs.

Knowledge, attitude, practice and barriers towards pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reactions reporting among healthcare professionals in Turkey: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Globally, pharmacovigilance (PV) is crucial for the patient's safety and proper use of drugs. Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reaction (ADR) is a professional obligation of every healthcare professionals (HCPs). The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze the existing literature about the knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) level of HCPs regarding PV and ADRs reporting in Turkey.

METHODS

A systematic and comprehensive articles search strategy was carried out in different seven electronic databases (PubMed, PubMed Central, Goggle Scholar, Ovid-SP, MEDLINE, Wiley Online Library, DergiPark) from 2010 to 2020. We searched to identify existing literature about cross-sectional observational studies investigating the KAP of HCPs regarding PV and ADRs reporting in different geographical regions of Turkey. Quality assessment and risk of bias were assessed among included studies.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were chosen for full-text analysis. Finally, according to inclusion criteria, seven research articles were selected for systematic review. Overall, the KAP of HCPs varies across the studies. The lack of a standardized validated measuring tool to evaluate the KAP and differences in questionnaire items were the main limitations in included studies. Around, 69.1% (range: 54.6-100%) of HCPs were not aware of the national pharmacovigilance center in Turkey. About, 37.5% (range: 7.1-75.7%) of HCPs believed that reporting of ADRs is not important and 87.5% (range: 69.3-100%) stated that they never reported ADR previously during their practice. The most frequently highlighted barriers to PV were lack of time, uncertainty and did not know where to report.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review revealed a major KAP gap in Turkey towards PV activities. Low ADR reporting practice of HCPs was a major identified issue. The creation of a mandatory unified PV education intervention for future HCPs to rationally report ADR of drugs are crucial for a better healthcare system.

Pharmacovigilance education to healthcare professionals: Will it affect their performance in reporting adverse drug reactions?

AIM

To assess impact of pharmacovigilance (PV) educational program on knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) of healthcare professionals (HCPs).

METHODS

a prospective study was conducted on HCPs at an Egyptian hospital. The study included: pre-education phase; where KAP questionnaire was administered by HCPs to obtain baseline data, intervention phase; where educational sessions were held by clinical pharmacists and Egyptian PV centre, and post-education phase; where the questionnaire was re-administered by participants 9 months post-receiving educational sessions. The questionnaire comprised five sections: participants' demographics, knowledge, attitude and practice sections and two multiple choice questions asking about the importance of establishment of ADRs monitoring centre, and factors hindering ADRs reporting. Pre-education and post-education data were compared.

RESULTS

From 221 HCPs invited to participate, only 153 filled the pre-education and post-education questionnaires. At baseline, the median (range) of the total KAP score were 1 (0-7), 1 (0-4) and 4 (0-14) for physicians, nurses and pharmacists, respectively. All KAP scores were low for all HCPs at baseline with the pharmacists having significantly higher knowledge and attitude scores compared with physicians, and nurses (P < .001). After education, all scores significantly increased and 13 ADRs were reported by HCPs compared with only 2 at baseline.

CONCLUSION

It was concluded that educational program had a significant impact on enhancing KAP of HCPs towards PV and ADRs reporting.

Assessment of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice in Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting of Healthcare Professionals in Vietnam: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background: Under-reporting is a major issue of ADR spontaneous reporting system. This study assesses the knowledge, attitude, and practice of healthcare professionals in Children’s Hospital in Vietnam and suggests solutions to enhance ADR reporting rate based on findings. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted and 397 self-administered structured questionnaires were distributed to all potential HCPs working in surveyed hospital within 2 weeks from June 03 to June 20, 2020. Results: Overall response rate was 97% with 384 responses. A majority answered correctly ADRs’ knowledge apart from form supplier (1.6%) and possible causes (2.6%). The need to focus on patient care (33.3%) and the trivia of reaction (31.5%) reduced HCPs’ attention. About 61.7% reported once in their career, 49.7% had training. Having trained group had numbers of practice significantly higher than their counterparts. Major reason for not reporting was lack of information and instruction. Preferred solutions were regularly training, updating, and collaboration of HCPs in reporting ADR. Conclusion: Healthcare professionals had adequate knowledge, positive attitude, and moderate practice. Training significantly raised the number of practices in reporting ADR. Preferred solutions were regular training, updating, and collaboration of healthcare professionals in ADR reporting.

Reporting, handling, and subjective importance of adverse drug reactions among general practitioners: an exploratory cross-sectional survey

Background: Interventions for improving reporting and management of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) need regular evaluations of attitude and knowledge of health care professionals regarding pharmacovigilance.Research design and methods: An exploratory survey among general practitioners in Germany was conducted.Results: We interviewed 302 individuals (participation rate 34.3%; mean age 54 yrs; 37.1% female). Underreporting was prevalent in the sample (only 16.6% had reported an ADR in 2015; average total number of ADR-reports was 5). We found awareness of the importance of pharmacovigilance and ADRs, information deficits (43% were not aware of the obligation to report ADRs), and several uncertainties regarding the detection and reporting of ADRs. The participants rated the German ADR reporting system as satisfactory (mean grade 3.7 ± 1.2) and criticized the expenditure of time (63.6%) and the overall complexity (47.4%). To increase the motivation to report ADRs, the majority requested the possibility to report by telephone (61.3%), feedback after reporting (49.3%), telephone consultations (47.4%), and more education and training in pharmacovigilance (31.1%), also during medical school (25.8%).Conclusions: We found evidence of objective and subjective need for further (mandatory) education and training in pharmacovigilance, already during medical school. Our results point to some shortcomings of the German pharmacovigilance system.

Nurses' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice in Relation to Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting: A Systematic Review

AIM

To describe and synthesize aspects of knowledge, attitudes, and practice regarding pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting and to explore associated barriers from a nurse perspective.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge from January 2010 to October 2020 were searched. Original observational studies that were written in English and which focused on nurses' knowledge, attitudes, practice, and perceived barriers regarding pharmacovigilance and ADR reporting in various healthcare settings were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies published in English from 2010 to 2020 were retrieved during the search process. Overall, in the knowledge domain, the median percentages of nurses who were aware of the definitions of ADRs were 74.1%, while only 26.3% were aware of the adverse drug reaction reporting form. In the attitude domain, 84.6% of nurses believed ADR reporting to be important for patient/medicine safety and 37.1% had a fear of legal liability following ADR reporting. Although 67.1% of nurses encountered ADRs during their professional life, only 21.2% had a history of ADR reporting. In addition, lack of knowledge/training (median: 47.1%) was identified as the most common barrier in ADR reporting from a nursing viewpoint.

CONCLUSION

Despite positive nurse attitudes, knowledge and practice in relation to pharmacovigilance activities and ADR reporting did not occur regularly or often. Improving nurses' knowledge through in-service training and degree-level education and addressing the main barriers of ADR reporting may help to achieve an improved level of reporting.

Knowledge, attitudes and practices of health care professionals towards adverse drug reaction reporting in public sector primary health care facilities in a South African district

PURPOSE

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) have an appreciable impact on patients' health. Little is known however about ADR reporting in ambulatory care environments especially in low- and middle-income countries. Consequently, our aim was to determine knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) among health care professionals (HCPs) towards ADR reporting in primary health care (PHC) facilities in South Africa. The findings will be used to direct future activities.

METHODS

Descriptive, cross-sectional design using quantitative methodology among 8 public sector community health care centres and 40 PHC clinics in the Tshwane Health District, Gauteng Province. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to 218 HCPs, including all key groups.

RESULTS

A total of 200 responses were received (91.7%). Although an appropriate attitude towards ADR reporting existed, the actual frequency of ADR reporting was low (16.0%). Of the respondents, 60.5% did not know how to report, where to report or when to report an ADR and 51.5% said the level of their clinical knowledge made it difficult to decide whether or not an ADR had occurred. Over 97.5% stated they should be reporting ADRs with 89% feeling that ADR reporting is a professional obligation and over 70% that ADR reporting should be compulsory. When results were combined, the overall mean score in terms of positive or preferred practices for ADR reporting was 24.6% with pharmacists having the highest scores.

CONCLUSION

Under-reporting of ADRs with gaps in KAP was evident. There is a serious and urgent need for education and training of HCPs on ADR reporting in South Africa.