Helena Gama1, Sofia Correia, Nuno Lunet. 1. Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Porto Medical School, Porto, Portugal.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aimed to review systematically the published evidence regarding the effect of questionnaire design on the recall of pharmacological treatments. METHODS: The electronic databases Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2007, using the following search terms: drug utilization, pharmaceutical preparations, pharmacoepidemiology, validation studies, methods, epidemiologic methods, interviews, data collection, and questionnaires. Drug utilization studies comparing different types of questionnaire or methods of questionnaire administration were included. Backward and forward citation tracking were also conducted. RESULTS: Eight studies were included in the systematic review, comparing questions asking for specific drugs or indications with open-ended questions (n = 5), evaluating the use of memory aids (n = 1), or studying the influence of response order on recall (n = 2). The studies were heterogeneous, namely regarding the populations evaluated (e.g., pregnant women, hypertensive patients, general population), mode of questionnaire administration (e.g., personal or telephone interview, self-administered), recall period (e.g., current use, 1 week, previous episode of a disease), or drugs evaluated (e.g., analgesics, antimalarials, all medicines). Despite the lack of standardization in presentation of results, the prevalence of drug use may vary between 5 and 40% when drug names and indications or pictures are used as memory aids, or as a result of primacy effects in self-administered questionnaires. The yielding of the questionnaires depended on the pharmacological groups evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Scientific work regarding methods for drug utilization data collection is scarce. The available evidence highlights the importance of knowing the questionnaire characteristics for a proper interpretation of results from drug utilization studies. (c) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
PURPOSE: We aimed to review systematically the published evidence regarding the effect of questionnaire design on the recall of pharmacological treatments. METHODS: The electronic databases Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2007, using the following search terms: drug utilization, pharmaceutical preparations, pharmacoepidemiology, validation studies, methods, epidemiologic methods, interviews, data collection, and questionnaires. Drug utilization studies comparing different types of questionnaire or methods of questionnaire administration were included. Backward and forward citation tracking were also conducted. RESULTS: Eight studies were included in the systematic review, comparing questions asking for specific drugs or indications with open-ended questions (n = 5), evaluating the use of memory aids (n = 1), or studying the influence of response order on recall (n = 2). The studies were heterogeneous, namely regarding the populations evaluated (e.g., pregnant women, hypertensivepatients, general population), mode of questionnaire administration (e.g., personal or telephone interview, self-administered), recall period (e.g., current use, 1 week, previous episode of a disease), or drugs evaluated (e.g., analgesics, antimalarials, all medicines). Despite the lack of standardization in presentation of results, the prevalence of drug use may vary between 5 and 40% when drug names and indications or pictures are used as memory aids, or as a result of primacy effects in self-administered questionnaires. The yielding of the questionnaires depended on the pharmacological groups evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Scientific work regarding methods for drug utilization data collection is scarce. The available evidence highlights the importance of knowing the questionnaire characteristics for a proper interpretation of results from drug utilization studies. (c) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Authors: Marleen M H J van Gelder; Iris A L M van Rooij; Hermien E K de Walle; Nel Roeleveld; Marian K Bakker Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Saira Khan; Alison A Evans; Lucy Rorke-Adams; Manuela A Orjuela; Tania Shiminski-Maher; Greta R Bunin Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2010-03-09 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Lea I Kredel; Oliver Schneidereit; Jörg C Hoffmann; Britta Siegmund; Jan C Preiß Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Chelsea Nichols; Ligia Maria Cruz Espinoza; Vera von Kalckreuth; Peter Aaby; Muna Ahmed El Tayeb; Mohammad Ali; Abraham Aseffa; Morten Bjerregaard-Andersen; Robert F Breiman; Leonard Cosmas; John A Crump; Denise Myriam Dekker; Amy Gassama Sow; Nagla Gasmelseed; Julian T Hertz; Justin Im; Leon Parfait Kabore; Karen H Keddy; Frank Konings; Sandra Valborg Løfberg; Christian G Meyer; Joel M Montgomery; Aissatou Niang; Andriamampionona Njariharinjakamampionona; Beatrice Olack; Gi Deok Pak; Ursula Panzner; Jin Kyung Park; Se Eun Park; Henintsoa Rabezanahary; Jean Philibert Rakotondrainiarivelo; Raphaël Rakotozandrindrainy; Tiana Mirana Raminosoa; Matthew P Rubach; Mekonnen Teferi; Hye Jin Seo; Arvinda Sooka; Abdramane Soura; Adama Tall; Trevor Toy; Biruk Yeshitela; John D Clemens; Thomas F Wierzba; Stephen Baker; Florian Marks Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2015-11-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Emily Suzanne Brouwer; Sonia Napravnik; Sarah G Smiley; Amanda H Corbett; Joseph J Eron Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2011-02-03 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Elizabeth N Allen; Adiel K Mushi; Isolide S Massawe; Lasse S Vestergaard; Martha Lemnge; Sarah G Staedke; Ushma Mehta; Karen I Barnes; Clare I R Chandler Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2013-11-14 Impact factor: 4.615