Rania Al Dweik1, Dawn Stacey2, Dafna Kohen3, Sanni Yaya4. 1. Department of Population Health, Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 2. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Program, School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 3. School of Epidemiology, Public Health, and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, ON, Canada. 4. School of International Development and Global Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Abstract
AIM: The aim of the present study was to determine the barriers and motives influencing consumer reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). METHODS: A systematic review, guided by the Cochrane Handbook, was conducted. Electronic searches included MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1964 to December 2014. Eligible studies addressed patients' perceptions and factors influencing ADR reporting. Studies about healthcare professional (HCP) reporting of ADRs were excluded. Studies were appraised for quality, and results were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: Of 1435 citations identified, 21 studies were eligible. Studies were primarily conducted in the UK, the Netherlands and Australia. The identified barriers to patient reporting of ADRs (n = 15 studies) included poor awareness, confusion about who should report the ADR, difficulties with reporting procedures, lack of feedback on submitted reports, mailing costs, ADRs resolved and prior negative reporting experiences. The identified motives for patients reporting ADRs (n = 10 studies) were: preventing others from having similar ADRs, wanting personal feedback, improving medication safety, informing regulatory agencies, improving HCP practices, responding to HCPs not reporting their ADRs and having been asked to report ADRs by HCPs. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients were not aware of reporting systems and others were confused about reporting. Patients were mainly motivated to make their ADRs known to prevent similar suffering in other patients. By increasing patient familiarity and providing clear reporting processes, reporting systems could better achieve patient reporting of ADRs.
AIM: The aim of the present study was to determine the barriers and motives influencing consumer reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). METHODS: A systematic review, guided by the Cochrane Handbook, was conducted. Electronic searches included MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1964 to December 2014. Eligible studies addressed patients' perceptions and factors influencing ADR reporting. Studies about healthcare professional (HCP) reporting of ADRs were excluded. Studies were appraised for quality, and results were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: Of 1435 citations identified, 21 studies were eligible. Studies were primarily conducted in the UK, the Netherlands and Australia. The identified barriers to patient reporting of ADRs (n = 15 studies) included poor awareness, confusion about who should report the ADR, difficulties with reporting procedures, lack of feedback on submitted reports, mailing costs, ADRs resolved and prior negative reporting experiences. The identified motives for patients reporting ADRs (n = 10 studies) were: preventing others from having similar ADRs, wanting personal feedback, improving medication safety, informing regulatory agencies, improving HCP practices, responding to HCPs not reporting their ADRs and having been asked to report ADRs by HCPs. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients were not aware of reporting systems and others were confused about reporting. Patients were mainly motivated to make their ADRs known to prevent similar suffering in other patients. By increasing patient familiarity and providing clear reporting processes, reporting systems could better achieve patient reporting of ADRs.
Authors: Florence van Hunsel; Attje Talsma; Eugène van Puijenbroek; Lolkje de Jong-van den Berg; Kees van Grootheest Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2010-12-28 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Linda Härmark; Miguel Lie-Kwie; Lisette Berm; Han de Gier; Kees van Grootheest Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2012-07-27 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Larissa Shamseer; David Moher; Mike Clarke; Davina Ghersi; Alessandro Liberati; Mark Petticrew; Paul Shekelle; Lesley A Stewart Journal: BMJ Date: 2015-01-02
Authors: Tolulope O Afolaranmi; Z I Hassan; O Y Sodipo; D Gwomson; O J Ugwu; A O D Ofakunrin; O O Ige; Y O Tagurum; P W Bupwatda Journal: J Med Trop Date: 2020-05-20
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