OBJECTIVE: Aim of this study is to gain insight in experiences and expectations of general practitioners and specialist doctors regarding the feedback information of the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb. METHOD: A questionnaire survey was conducted among a random sample of 400 doctors, divided in general practitioners and specialist doctors. Within these groups, a difference was made between those who reported only once and those who are frequent reporters. A structured questionnaire consisted of 23 questions about expectations, experiences, the influence of feedback information and what the doctors would like to change in the feedback from Lareb. A comparison between the groups will give insight in what they think separately and how Lareb can seize on their wishes. KEY FINDINGS: The response rate was 54.4% (n = 217) after one reminder. The respondents are satisfied with the feedback information and regarded the information of good quality. The expectations were higher on information about sources (significance 0.00, caused by specialist doctors who reported once) and co-medication (0.025 caused by all groups). The experiences of the four groups were also very positive. They all find the feedback information of Lareb reliable, scientifically well considered and to the point. CONCLUSIONS: General practitioners and specialist doctors are satisfied about the follow-up information and they like to see the same format of information and communication in the future.
OBJECTIVE: Aim of this study is to gain insight in experiences and expectations of general practitioners and specialist doctors regarding the feedback information of the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb. METHOD: A questionnaire survey was conducted among a random sample of 400 doctors, divided in general practitioners and specialist doctors. Within these groups, a difference was made between those who reported only once and those who are frequent reporters. A structured questionnaire consisted of 23 questions about expectations, experiences, the influence of feedback information and what the doctors would like to change in the feedback from Lareb. A comparison between the groups will give insight in what they think separately and how Lareb can seize on their wishes. KEY FINDINGS: The response rate was 54.4% (n = 217) after one reminder. The respondents are satisfied with the feedback information and regarded the information of good quality. The expectations were higher on information about sources (significance 0.00, caused by specialist doctors who reported once) and co-medication (0.025 caused by all groups). The experiences of the four groups were also very positive. They all find the feedback information of Lareb reliable, scientifically well considered and to the point. CONCLUSIONS: General practitioners and specialist doctors are satisfied about the follow-up information and they like to see the same format of information and communication in the future.
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