Jenny Hartman1, Linda Härmark2, Eugène van Puijenbroek2,3. 1. Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands. jenny_hartman@hotmail.com. 2. Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands. 3. Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, PharmacoTherapy, -Epidemiology and -Economics-Groningen Research Institute of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to gain insight in current pharmacovigilance educational activities and to gather information on which topics should be included in the undergraduate pharmacovigilance core curriculum. METHOD: A web-based questionnaire was carried out containing 45 questions divided over four sections between 28 October 2014 and 31 January 2015. Potential participants working in pharmacovigilance and/or providing training in this field were invited via email and a widespread web link and snowball sampling was used to recruit additional participants. RESULTS: The questionnaire was filled out by 307 respondents from 88 different countries with a response rate of 29.3% for the email invitation and an unknown rate for the web link. Respondents were mainly pharmacists and physicians. Currently, lectures are the largest proportion of educational activities and all healthcare profession curricula have a mode of 2 h as number of contact hours per course. Respondents rated clinical aspects as the most important subdomain to be included in the core curriculum with prevention of adverse drug reactions as the most important subtopic. This was followed by communication aspects between parties, with communication between regulatory authorities and healthcare professionals, methodological aspects with causality assessment, and regulatory aspects with benefit-risk assessment. This is similar to subjects addressed in current educational activities with little difference between medical and pharmacy curricula. CONCLUSION: This study gave a good general impression in current educational activities and the respondents' needs and wishes for future activities worldwide, which both will be used for the development of the undergraduate pharmacovigilance core curriculum.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to gain insight in current pharmacovigilance educational activities and to gather information on which topics should be included in the undergraduate pharmacovigilance core curriculum. METHOD: A web-based questionnaire was carried out containing 45 questions divided over four sections between 28 October 2014 and 31 January 2015. Potential participants working in pharmacovigilance and/or providing training in this field were invited via email and a widespread web link and snowball sampling was used to recruit additional participants. RESULTS: The questionnaire was filled out by 307 respondents from 88 different countries with a response rate of 29.3% for the email invitation and an unknown rate for the web link. Respondents were mainly pharmacists and physicians. Currently, lectures are the largest proportion of educational activities and all healthcare profession curricula have a mode of 2 h as number of contact hours per course. Respondents rated clinical aspects as the most important subdomain to be included in the core curriculum with prevention of adverse drug reactions as the most important subtopic. This was followed by communication aspects between parties, with communication between regulatory authorities and healthcare professionals, methodological aspects with causality assessment, and regulatory aspects with benefit-risk assessment. This is similar to subjects addressed in current educational activities with little difference between medical and pharmacy curricula. CONCLUSION: This study gave a good general impression in current educational activities and the respondents' needs and wishes for future activities worldwide, which both will be used for the development of the undergraduate pharmacovigilance core curriculum.
Authors: Roald Gerritsen; Hans Faddegon; Fred Dijkers; Kees van Grootheest; Eugène van Puijenbroek Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2011-09-01 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Jürgen Beckmann; Ulrich Hagemann; Priya Bahri; Andrew Bate; Ian W Boyd; Gerald J Dal Pan; Brian D Edwards; I Ralph Edwards; Kenneth Hartigan-Go; Marie Lindquist; John McEwen; Yola Moride; Sten Olsson; Shanthi N Pal; Rachida Soulaymani-Bencheikh; Marco Tuccori; Claudia P Vaca; Ian C K Wong Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Yanli Nie; Lin Li; Yurong Duan; Peixian Chen; Bruce H Barraclough; Mingming Zhang; Jing Li Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2011-06-14 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Mohammed Alshakka; Wafa Badullah; Abdullah Al-Dhuraibi; Sara Alshagga; Mohamed Izham Mohamed Ibrahim Journal: J Pharm Bioallied Sci Date: 2022-05-19
Authors: Rike van Eekeren; Leàn Rolfes; Andries S Koster; Lara Magro; Gurumurthy Parthasarathi; Hussain Al Ramimmy; Tim Schutte; Daisuke Tanaka; Eugène van Puijenbroek; Linda Härmark Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Dorota Kopciuch; Nashwa Nabil Kamal; Nashaat Nabil Kamal; Nermin Aly Hamdy; Anna Paczkowska; Tomasz Zaprutko; Piotr Ratajczak; Jędrzej Fliciński; Krzysztof Kus; Elżbieta Nowakowska Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 3.390