Literature DB >> 16954488

An educational intervention to improve physician reporting of adverse drug reactions: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Adolfo Figueiras1, Maria T Herdeiro, Jorge Polónia, Juan Jesus Gestal-Otero.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Data on the adverse effects of newly marketed drugs are limited. Voluntary reporting is an important part of postmarketing surveillance but is underused by physicians.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of educational outreach visits for improving adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting by physicians. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cluster-randomized controlled trial covering all National Health System physicians in the north of Portugal, with intervention in March 2004 through July 2004, and 13 to 16 months of follow-up. A total of 1388 physicians were assigned in 4 spatial clusters to the intervention group, and 5063 were assigned in 11 clusters to the control group. INTERVENTION: One-hour educational outreach visits tailored to training needs identified in a previous study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in total number of reported ADRs and number of serious, high-causality, unexpected, and new-drug-related ADRs, using generalized linear mixed models adjusted for baseline ADR reporting, age, specialty, and work setting.
RESULTS: At baseline, ADR reporting rates (per 1000 physician-years) did not differ significantly between the intervention groups and the control groups in reporting ADRs overall (7.6 vs 11.3), nor did they differ significantly by category: serious, 4.3 vs 6.0; high-causality, 5.4 vs 7.6; unexpected, 1.6 vs 3.5; and new-drug-related ADRs, 3.7 vs 3.8. (P>.05 for all comparisons). The control group had no significant increase in ADR reports during follow-up. The adjusted increase in ADR reporting rates attributable to intervention was 90.19 for total ADRs (95% confidence interval [CI], 54.51-125.87; relative risk [RR], 10.23; 95% CI, 3.81-27.51), 30.16 for serious ADRs (95% CI, 18.84-41.47; RR, 6.32; 95% CI, 2.09-19.16), 64.90 for high-causality ADRs (95% CI, 38.38-91.42; RR, 8.75; 95% CI, 3.05-25.07), 28.04 for unexpected ADRs (95% CI, 16.25-39.83; RR, 30.21; 95% CI, 4.54-200.84), and 42.17 for new-drug-related ADRs (95% CI, 21.58-62.76; RR, 8.05; 95% CI, 2.10 -30.83). The greatest difference occurred during the first 4 months after intervention, but differences remained statistically significant for 12 months.
CONCLUSION: A targeted outreach program may improve high-quality reporting of ADRs among physicians.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16954488     DOI: 10.1001/jama.296.9.1086

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  55 in total

1.  Informed consent and cluster-randomized trials.

Authors:  Julius Sim; Angus Dawson
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2012-01-19       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Underreporting in pharmacovigilance: an intervention for Italian GPs (Emilia-Romagna region).

Authors:  Chiara Biagi; Nicola Montanaro; Elena Buccellato; Giuseppe Roberto; Alberto Vaccheri; Domenico Motola
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2012-06-17       Impact factor: 2.953

3.  Workshop- and telephone-based interventions to improve adverse drug reaction reporting: a cluster-randomized trial in Portugal.

Authors:  Maria Teresa Herdeiro; Inês Ribeiro-Vaz; Mónica Ferreira; Jorge Polónia; Amílcar Falcão; Adolfo Figueiras
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2012-08-01       Impact factor: 5.606

4.  Effect of an educational intervention to improve adverse drug reaction reporting in physicians: a cluster randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Elena Lopez-Gonzalez; Maria T Herdeiro; María Piñeiro-Lamas; Adolfo Figueiras
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 5.606

5.  Factors that influence under-reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions among community pharmacists in a Spanish region.

Authors:  Marta Irujo; Guadalupe Beitia; Maira Bes-Rastrollo; Adolfo Figueiras; Sonia Hernández-Díaz; Berta Lasheras
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 5.606

6.  Reporting of adverse drug reactions may be influenced by feedback to the reporting doctor.

Authors:  Susanna M Wallerstedt; Gertrud Brunlöf; Marie-Louise Johansson; Carina Tukukino; Lars Ny
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2007-03-09       Impact factor: 2.953

Review 7.  Determinants of under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review.

Authors:  Elena Lopez-Gonzalez; Maria T Herdeiro; Adolfo Figueiras
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 5.606

8.  An intervention to improve spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting by hospital physicians: a time series analysis in Spain.

Authors:  Consuelo Pedrós; Antoni Vallano; Gloria Cereza; Gemma Mendoza-Aran; Antònia Agustí; Cristina Aguilera; Immaculada Danés; Xavier Vidal; Josep M Arnau
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 5.606

9.  Effects of e-mails containing ADR information and a current case report on ADR reporting rate and quality of reports.

Authors:  Marie-Louise Johansson; Gertrud Brunlöf; Christina Edward; Susanna M Wallerstedt
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2009-01-07       Impact factor: 2.953

10.  Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions in Primary Care Settings in Kuwait: A Comparative Study of Physicians and Pharmacists.

Authors:  Jacinthe Lemay; Fatemah M Alsaleh; Lulwa Al-Buresli; Mohammed Al-Mutairi; Eman A Abahussain; Tania Bayoud
Journal:  Med Princ Pract       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 1.927

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.