OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to investigate attitudes of general practitioners (GPs) and hospital physicians in Sweden towards spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). METHOD: Two areas in the northern region of Sweden were selected for the study. A knowledge and attitude questionnaire followed by a reminder letter 2 weeks later was addressed to all GPs and hospital physicians in the study areas. RESULT: The total response rate from the study areas was 748 of the 1274 questionnaires sent out (58.7%). Of those who responded, 236 were GPs, 433 were hospital physicians and 79 had other positions. Of the responders, 252 stated that they had never reported any ADR and 488 that they had reported at least once in their career. Issues that came out as important in the decision to report or not to report were whether the reaction was considered well-known or not, the severity of the reaction, hesitance to report only on suspicion, lack of knowledge of existing rules, giving priority to other matters and lack of time to report ADRs. Only minor differences in these regards were observed between male and female physicians. CONCLUSION: Our investigation shows that the physicians in northern Sweden have a fairly good knowledge about the existing rules for reporting ADRs in Sweden. However, the attitudes leave room for considerable under-reporting due to matters related mainly to the medical impact of the reaction and of reporting it, but also to the scientific "paradox" of reporting only on suspicion and of course due to lack of time in the health care setting.
OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to investigate attitudes of general practitioners (GPs) and hospital physicians in Sweden towards spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). METHOD: Two areas in the northern region of Sweden were selected for the study. A knowledge and attitude questionnaire followed by a reminder letter 2 weeks later was addressed to all GPs and hospital physicians in the study areas. RESULT: The total response rate from the study areas was 748 of the 1274 questionnaires sent out (58.7%). Of those who responded, 236 were GPs, 433 were hospital physicians and 79 had other positions. Of the responders, 252 stated that they had never reported any ADR and 488 that they had reported at least once in their career. Issues that came out as important in the decision to report or not to report were whether the reaction was considered well-known or not, the severity of the reaction, hesitance to report only on suspicion, lack of knowledge of existing rules, giving priority to other matters and lack of time to report ADRs. Only minor differences in these regards were observed between male and female physicians. CONCLUSION: Our investigation shows that the physicians in northern Sweden have a fairly good knowledge about the existing rules for reporting ADRs in Sweden. However, the attitudes leave room for considerable under-reporting due to matters related mainly to the medical impact of the reaction and of reporting it, but also to the scientific "paradox" of reporting only on suspicion and of course due to lack of time in the health care setting.