Literature DB >> 22788235

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

Maria Teresa Herdeiro1, Inês Ribeiro-Vaz, Mónica Ferreira, Jorge Polónia, Amílcar Falcão, Adolfo Figueiras.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is the method most widely used by pharmacovigilance systems, with the principal limitation being the physician's underreporting.
OBJECTIVE: This study sought to evaluate the results of workshop and telephone-interview interventions designed to improve the quantity and relevance of ADR reporting by physicians.
METHODS: A cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted on 6579 physicians in northern Portugal in 2008. Following randomization, we allocated 1034 physicians to a telephone-interview intervention, 438 to a workshop intervention and the remaining 5107 to the control group. At the workshop, a real clinical case was presented and participants were then asked to report on it by completing the relevant form. In the telephone intervention, participants were asked (i) whether they had ever had any suspicion of ADRs; (ii) whether they had experienced any difficulties in reporting; (iii) whether they remembered the different methods that could be used for reporting purposes; and (iv) whether they attached importance to the individual physician's role in reporting. We followed up physicians to assess ADR reporting rates to the Northern Pharmacovigilance Centre. In terms of relevance, adverse reactions were classified as serious or unexpected. Statistical analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis, and generalized linear mixed models were applied using the penalized quasi-likelihood method. The physicians studied were followed up over a period of 20 months.
RESULTS: Two hundred physicians underwent the educational intervention. Comparison with the control group showed that the workshop intervention increased the spontaneous ADR reporting rate by an average of 4-fold (relative risk [RR] 3.97; 95% CI 3.86, 4.08; p < 0.001) across the 20 months post-intervention. Telephone interviews, in contrast, proved less efficient since they led to no significant difference (p = 0.052) vis-à-vis the control group in ADR reporting (RR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00, 1.04). The effects of the interventions on the reporting rate of serious and high-causality ADRs indicated that the RRs associated with workshops were 6.84 (95% CI 6.69, 6.98; p < 0.001) for serious ADRs and 3.58 (95% CI 3.51, 3.66; p < 0.001) for high-causality ADRs.
CONCLUSIONS: Whereas telephone interventions only increased spontaneous reporting in the first 4 months of follow-up, workshops significantly increased both the quantity and relevance of spontaneous ADR reporting for more than 1 year.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22788235     DOI: 10.1007/BF03261962

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Drug Saf        ISSN: 0114-5916            Impact factor:   5.606


  27 in total

Review 1.  What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  S Hollis; F Campbell
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-09-11

2.  Timing of new black box warnings and withdrawals for prescription medications.

Authors:  Karen E Lasser; Paul D Allen; Steffie J Woolhandler; David U Himmelstein; Sidney M Wolfe; David H Bor
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-05-01       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 3.  Factors that influence spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions: a model centralized in the medical professional.

Authors:  María T Herdeiro; Jorge Polonia; Juan J Gestal-Otero; Adolfo Figueiras
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 2.431

4.  Physicians' attitudes and adverse drug reaction reporting : a case-control study in Portugal.

Authors:  Maria T Herdeiro; Adolfo Figueiras; Jorge Polónia; Juan Jesus Gestal-Otero
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 5.606

5.  A small economic inducement to stimulate increased reporting of adverse drug reactions--a way of dealing with an old problem?

Authors:  M Bäckström; T Mjörndal
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2006-03-30       Impact factor: 2.953

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

Authors:  Adolfo Figueiras; Maria T Herdeiro; Jorge Polónia; Juan Jesus Gestal-Otero
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-09-06       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Physician reporting of adverse drug reactions. Results of the Rhode Island Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Project.

Authors:  H D Scott; A Thacher-Renshaw; S E Rosenbaum; W J Waters; M Green; L G Andrews; G A Faich
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1990-04-04       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Pharmacy-coordinated program that encourages physician reporting of adverse drug reactions.

Authors:  G W Gilroy; M J Scollins; C A Gay; D J Harry; D F Giannuzzi
Journal:  Am J Hosp Pharm       Date:  1990-06

9.  Impact of formal continuing medical education: do conferences, workshops, rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or health care outcomes?

Authors:  D Davis; M A O'Brien; N Freemantle; F M Wolf; P Mazmanian; A Taylor-Vaisey
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-09-01       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 10.  Drug-related hospital admissions.

Authors:  T R Einarson
Journal:  Ann Pharmacother       Date:  1993 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.154

View more
  17 in total

1.  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

2.  Are consumers ready to take part in the Pharmacovigilance System?--a Portuguese preliminary study concerning ADR reporting.

Authors:  Cristiano Matos; Florence van Hunsel; João Joaquim
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-05-26       Impact factor: 2.953

3.  First Indian study evaluating role of biochemical investigations and diagnostic tools in detection of adverse drug reactions.

Authors:  Vishal R Tandon; Vijay Khajuria; Kapila Raina; Vivek Mahajan; Aman Sharma; Zahid Gillani
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2014-09-20

Review 4.  Evolution of adverse drug reactions reporting systems: paper based to software based.

Authors:  M T Madhushika; T P Weerarathna; P L G C Liyanage; S S Jayasinghe
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 3.064

5.  A comprehensive intervention for adverse drug reactions identification and reporting in a Pediatric Emergency Department.

Authors:  Olga Morales Ríos; Luis Jasso Gutiérrez; Juan O Talavera; Martha María Téllez-Rojo; Víctor Olivar López; Juan Garduño Espinosa; Onofre Muñoz Hernández
Journal:  Int J Clin Pharm       Date:  2016-02

6.  Smartphone-based mobile applications for adverse drug reactions reporting: global status and country experience.

Authors:  Ayako Fukushima; Noha Iessa; Madhava Ram Balakrishnan; Shanthi Narayan Pal
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2022-05-02       Impact factor: 2.796

7.  Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a challenge for pharmacovigilance in India.

Authors:  Vishal R Tandon; Vivek Mahajan; Vijay Khajuria; Zahid Gillani
Journal:  Indian J Pharmacol       Date:  2015 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.200

8.  Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches.

Authors:  Inês Ribeiro-Vaz; Cristina Costa Santos; Ricardo Cruz-Correia
Journal:  Rev Saude Publica       Date:  2016-05-03       Impact factor: 2.106

9.  Awareness among tertiary care doctors about Pharmacovigilance Programme of India: Do endocrinologists differ from others?

Authors:  Pramod Kumar Sharma; Surjit Singh; Puneet Dhamija
Journal:  Indian J Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2016 May-Jun

Review 10.  Post-marketing withdrawal of 462 medicinal products because of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review of the world literature.

Authors:  Igho J Onakpoya; Carl J Heneghan; Jeffrey K Aronson
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2016-02-04       Impact factor: 8.775

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.