Kumar G Chhabra1, Ashish Sharma2, Chaya Chhabra3, J Jyothirmai Reddy2, Shravani G Deolia4, Yogesh Mittal5. 1. Department of Public Health Dentistry, Jodhpur Dental College General Hospital, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India, e-mail: rajsushil.chhabra@gmail.com. 2. Department of Public Health Dentistry, Jodhpur Dental College General Hospital, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India. 3. Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Jodhpur Dental College General Hospital, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India. 4. Department of Public Health Dentistry, Sharad Panwar Dental College and Hospital, Wardha, Maharasthra, India. 5. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Jodhpur Dental College General Hospital, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This is a cross-sectional knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAPs) study on pharmacovigilance (PV) and adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting among dental students in a teaching hospital in India. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the KAP of dental students regarding PV, ADR reporting, and barriers toward the same. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey using a self-administered, investigator-developed, close-ended questionnaire was conducted in an academic dental hospital in India. All prescribers including third year students, final year students, and house surgeons of the same institute were included for assessment of KAP regarding PV using 16, 8, and 8 items respectively. Data regarding barriers toward ADR reporting and demographics were also collected. Mann-Whitney U-test and Kruskal-Wallis test were applied followed by post hoc test. RESULTS: A total of 241 of 275 respondents participated in the study with a response rate of 87.5%. Overall, 64% reported that they had no idea about the term PV. Age was significantly associated with knowledge (p = 0.045) and attitude (p = 0.016). Barriers contributing to underreporting were difficulty in deciding whether or not an ADR has occurred (52.0%), concerns that the report may be wrong (37%), lack of confidence to discuss ADR with colleagues (29%), and almost no financial benefits (24%). CONCLUSION: Participants had a comparatively favorable attitude toward PV, but their knowledge and practice need considerable improvements. This study highlights the need for appropriate dental curriculum changes and further multicentric studies to shed more light on important issues of PV among dentists in India. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study explores dentists' knowledge, attitude, and behavior regarding PV, which could help to improve patient's safety and care. The favorable attitude of dentists is an indication that PV could be added in depth in the curriculum and in general practice. Information on barriers for reporting the ADRs could help to find possible solutions for removing the barriers precisely.
INTRODUCTION: This is a cross-sectional knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAPs) study on pharmacovigilance (PV) and adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting among dental students in a teaching hospital in India. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the KAP of dental students regarding PV, ADR reporting, and barriers toward the same. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey using a self-administered, investigator-developed, close-ended questionnaire was conducted in an academic dental hospital in India. All prescribers including third year students, final year students, and house surgeons of the same institute were included for assessment of KAP regarding PV using 16, 8, and 8 items respectively. Data regarding barriers toward ADR reporting and demographics were also collected. Mann-Whitney U-test and Kruskal-Wallis test were applied followed by post hoc test. RESULTS: A total of 241 of 275 respondents participated in the study with a response rate of 87.5%. Overall, 64% reported that they had no idea about the term PV. Age was significantly associated with knowledge (p = 0.045) and attitude (p = 0.016). Barriers contributing to underreporting were difficulty in deciding whether or not an ADR has occurred (52.0%), concerns that the report may be wrong (37%), lack of confidence to discuss ADR with colleagues (29%), and almost no financial benefits (24%). CONCLUSION:Participants had a comparatively favorable attitude toward PV, but their knowledge and practice need considerable improvements. This study highlights the need for appropriate dental curriculum changes and further multicentric studies to shed more light on important issues of PV among dentists in India. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study explores dentists' knowledge, attitude, and behavior regarding PV, which could help to improve patient's safety and care. The favorable attitude of dentists is an indication that PV could be added in depth in the curriculum and in general practice. Information on barriers for reporting the ADRs could help to find possible solutions for removing the barriers precisely.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adverse drug reactions; Dentists; Knowledge Pharmacovigilance.
Authors: Shahzeb Hasan Ansari; Abdullah Abdulrahman Abdullah Alzahrani; Abdullah Mohammed Said Abomelha; Alaa Emadeldin Attia Elhalwagy; Tariq Nouraldin Mustafa Alalawi; Talal Walid Mahmoud Sadiq Journal: J Family Med Prim Care Date: 2020-06-30