PURPOSE: This study aims to explore the differences in reported information between adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports of patient and healthcare professionals (HCPs), and, in addition, to explore possible correlation between the reported elements of information. METHODS: This retrospective study compared the reported information between 200 ADR reports of patients and HCPs. Reports were rendered anonymous and scored for the presence or absence of predefined elements of information. These elements can be objective (e.g. start date of the ADR) or subjective (e.g. the impact or severity of the ADR). A two-sided Pearson's Chi-square test was used to detect statistically significant differences in the reported information. A Bonferroni correction was used to correct for multiple comparisons. Correlation between the elements of information was explored using categorical principal components analysis (CATPCA). RESULTS: Overall, HCPs had a higher score for the presence of objective and patients for subjective elements of information. Elements that were statistically significant more often reported by patients are the impact of the ADR and the patient's weight and height. HCPs statistically significant more often reported the medical history and the route of administration of the drug. CATPCA showed four clusters of elements of information that have fair correlation. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the differences in reported information between ADR reports of patients and HCPs. Patient reports are more focused on patient-related information and the impact of the reported ADRs, whereas reports from HCPs provide more clinically related information.
PURPOSE: This study aims to explore the differences in reported information between adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports of patient and healthcare professionals (HCPs), and, in addition, to explore possible correlation between the reported elements of information. METHODS: This retrospective study compared the reported information between 200 ADR reports of patients and HCPs. Reports were rendered anonymous and scored for the presence or absence of predefined elements of information. These elements can be objective (e.g. start date of the ADR) or subjective (e.g. the impact or severity of the ADR). A two-sided Pearson's Chi-square test was used to detect statistically significant differences in the reported information. A Bonferroni correction was used to correct for multiple comparisons. Correlation between the elements of information was explored using categorical principal components analysis (CATPCA). RESULTS: Overall, HCPs had a higher score for the presence of objective and patients for subjective elements of information. Elements that were statistically significant more often reported by patients are the impact of the ADR and the patient's weight and height. HCPs statistically significant more often reported the medical history and the route of administration of the drug. CATPCA showed four clusters of elements of information that have fair correlation. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the differences in reported information between ADR reports of patients and HCPs. Patient reports are more focused on patient-related information and the impact of the reported ADRs, whereas reports from HCPs provide more clinically related information.
Authors: George Tsey Sabblah; Delese Mimi Darko; Hudu Mogtari; Linda Härmark; Eugène van Puijenbroek Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Linda Härmark; June Raine; Hubert Leufkens; I Ralph Edwards; Ugo Moretti; Viola Macolic Sarinic; Agnes Kant Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 5.606