BACKGROUND: In Europe, Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs) are important tools to inform healthcare professionals of serious, new drug safety issues. However, this tool has not always been successful in effectively communicating the desired actions to healthcare professionals. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore healthcare providers' experiences and their preferences for improvement of risk communication, comparing views of general practitioners (GPs), internists, community pharmacists and hospital pharmacists. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed and pilot tested to assess experiences and preferences of Dutch healthcare professionals with DHPCs. The questionnaire and two reminders were sent to a random sample of 3488 GPs, internists and community and hospital pharmacists in the Netherlands. Descriptive statistics were used to describe demographic characteristics of the respondents. Chi squares, ANOVAs and the Wilcoxon signed rank test were used, when appropriate, to compare healthcare professional groups. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 34% (N = 1141, ranging from 24% for internists to 46% for community pharmacists). Healthcare providers trusted safety information more when provided by the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) than by the pharmaceutical industry. This was more the case for GPs than for the other healthcare professionals. Respondents preferred safety information to be issued by the MEB, the Dutch Pharmacovigilance Center or their own professional associations. The preferred alternative channels of drug safety information were e-mail, medical journals and electronic prescribing systems. CONCLUSIONS: Safety information of drugs does not always reach healthcare professionals through DHPCs. To improve current risk communication of drug safety issues, alternative and/or additional methods of risk communication should be developed using electronic methods and medical journals. Moreover, (additional) risk communication coming from an independent source such as the MEB should be considered. Special effort is needed to reach GPs.
BACKGROUND: In Europe, Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs) are important tools to inform healthcare professionals of serious, new drug safety issues. However, this tool has not always been successful in effectively communicating the desired actions to healthcare professionals. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore healthcare providers' experiences and their preferences for improvement of risk communication, comparing views of general practitioners (GPs), internists, community pharmacists and hospital pharmacists. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed and pilot tested to assess experiences and preferences of Dutch healthcare professionals with DHPCs. The questionnaire and two reminders were sent to a random sample of 3488 GPs, internists and community and hospital pharmacists in the Netherlands. Descriptive statistics were used to describe demographic characteristics of the respondents. Chi squares, ANOVAs and the Wilcoxon signed rank test were used, when appropriate, to compare healthcare professional groups. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 34% (N = 1141, ranging from 24% for internists to 46% for community pharmacists). Healthcare providers trusted safety information more when provided by the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) than by the pharmaceutical industry. This was more the case for GPs than for the other healthcare professionals. Respondents preferred safety information to be issued by the MEB, the Dutch Pharmacovigilance Center or their own professional associations. The preferred alternative channels of drug safety information were e-mail, medical journals and electronic prescribing systems. CONCLUSIONS: Safety information of drugs does not always reach healthcare professionals through DHPCs. To improve current risk communication of drug safety issues, alternative and/or additional methods of risk communication should be developed using electronic methods and medical journals. Moreover, (additional) risk communication coming from an independent source such as the MEB should be considered. Special effort is needed to reach GPs.
Authors: Jeff Jianfei Guo; Suellen Curkendall; Judith K Jones; Daniel Fife; Earl Goehring; Dewei She Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Robert J Valuck; Anne M Libby; Heather D Orton; Elaine H Morrato; Richard Allen; Ross J Baldessarini Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Jill P Karpel; Jay I Peters; Anthony M Szema; Brad Smith; Paula J Anderson Journal: Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 6.347
Authors: Arna H Arnardottir; Flora M Haaijer-Ruskamp; Sabine M J Straus; Hans-Georg Eichler; Pieter A de Graeff; Peter G M Mol Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Robert D Gibbons; C Hendricks Brown; Kwan Hur; Sue M Marcus; Dulal K Bhaumik; Joëlle A Erkens; Ron M C Herings; J John Mann Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Yu Ko; Daniel C Malone; Grant H Skrepnek; Edward P Armstrong; John E Murphy; Jacob Abarca; Rick A Rehfeld; Sally J Reel; Raymond L Woosley Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2008 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Sigrid Piening; Pieter A de Graeff; Sabine M J M Straus; Flora M Haaijer-Ruskamp; Peter G M Mol Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Priya Bahri; Alexander N Dodoo; Brian D Edwards; I Ralph Edwards; Irene Fermont; Ulrich Hagemann; Kenneth Hartigan-Go; Bruce Hugman; Peter G Mol Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Willemien J Kruik-Kollöffel; Job van der Palen; Myrthe P P van Herk-Sukel; H Joost Kruik; Kris L L Movig Journal: Clin Drug Investig Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 2.859
Authors: Sieta T de Vries; Maartje J M van der Sar; Amelia Cupelli; Ilaria Baldelli; Anna Marie Coleman; Dolores Montero; Ivana Šipić; Adriana Andrić; Annika Wennberg; Jane Ahlqvist-Rastad; Petra Denig; Peter G M Mol Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Sieta T de Vries; Maartje J M van der Sar; Anna Marie Coleman; Yvette Escudero; Alfonso Rodríguez Pascual; Miguel-Ángel Maciá Martínez; Amelia Cupelli; Ilaria Baldelli; Ivana Šipić; Adriana Andrić; Line Michan; Petra Denig; Peter G M Mol Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Sieta T de Vries; Petra Denig; Carmen Lasheras Ruiz; François Houÿez; Lisa Wong; Alastair Sutcliffe; Peter G M Mol Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 5.606