OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate two different feedback alternatives to doctors reporting adverse drug reactions (ADRs) concerning (1) effects on reporting rates and (2) doctors' opinions. METHODS: When reporting an ADR during January through March 2006, doctors in the western part of Sweden were randomised according to working address to receive feedback I or feedback II. Feedback I consisted of the conventional mode of feedback. Feedback II consisted of the contents of feedback I supplemented with information on the reported drug from the regional drug information centre. A questionnaire was administered 2 weeks after the feedback. The doctors were asked to give their opinion on the feedback concerning amount of information, quality and overall impression on a 6-point scale, where 1 corresponded to too little/very bad and 6 to too much/very good. During the inclusion period and the 6-month follow-up period, additional ADR reports originating from receivers of either feedback I or II were identified and compared. RESULTS: Sixty-six doctors received feedback I, and 49 received feedback II. The number of doctors reporting more than once was greater in the group receiving feedback II (39% vs. 22%; P = 0.039). Feedback II was judged to contain more information than feedback I (4.1 +/- 0.8 vs. 3.6 +/- 0.9; P = 0.014). No difference between the feedback alternatives concerning doctors' opinions on quality and overall impression could be detected. Sixty-five doctors (70%) stated that the content of the feedback letter could affect their willingness to report ADRs. CONCLUSION: The content of the feedback to doctors reporting ADRs may influence reporting rates.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate two different feedback alternatives to doctors reporting adverse drug reactions (ADRs) concerning (1) effects on reporting rates and (2) doctors' opinions. METHODS: When reporting an ADR during January through March 2006, doctors in the western part of Sweden were randomised according to working address to receive feedback I or feedback II. Feedback I consisted of the conventional mode of feedback. Feedback II consisted of the contents of feedback I supplemented with information on the reported drug from the regional drug information centre. A questionnaire was administered 2 weeks after the feedback. The doctors were asked to give their opinion on the feedback concerning amount of information, quality and overall impression on a 6-point scale, where 1 corresponded to too little/very bad and 6 to too much/very good. During the inclusion period and the 6-month follow-up period, additional ADR reports originating from receivers of either feedback I or II were identified and compared. RESULTS: Sixty-six doctors received feedback I, and 49 received feedback II. The number of doctors reporting more than once was greater in the group receiving feedback II (39% vs. 22%; P = 0.039). Feedback II was judged to contain more information than feedback I (4.1 +/- 0.8 vs. 3.6 +/- 0.9; P = 0.014). No difference between the feedback alternatives concerning doctors' opinions on quality and overall impression could be detected. Sixty-five doctors (70%) stated that the content of the feedback letter could affect their willingness to report ADRs. CONCLUSION: The content of the feedback to doctors reporting ADRs may influence reporting rates.
Authors: P M van den Bemt; A C Egberts; A W Lenderink; J M Verzijl; K A Simons; W S van der Pol; H G Leufkens Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Annet F Lenderink; Dick Spreeuwers; Jac J L van der Klink; Frank J H van Dijk Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 3.015