Literature DB >> 32989664

Patient Organizations' Barriers in Pharmacovigilance and Strategies to Stimulate Their Participation.

Katherine Chinchilla1,2, Cristiano Matos3, Victoria Hall1, Florence van Hunsel4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: European drug regulations aim for a patient-centered approach, including involving patients in the pharmacovigilance (PV) systems. However many patient organizations have little experience on how they can participate in PV activities. AIM: The aim of this study was to understand patient organizations' perceptions of PV, the barriers they face when implementing PV activities, and their interaction with other stakeholders and suggest methods for the stimulation of patient organizations as promoters of PV.
METHODS: A sequential qualitative method study was conducted and integrated with the quantitative study performed by Matos, Weits, and van Hunsel to complete a mixed method study.
RESULTS: The qualitative phase expands the understanding of the quantitative results from a previous study by broadening the knowledge on external barriers and internal barriers that patient organizations face when implementing PV activities. The strategies to stimulate patient-organization participation are the creation of more awareness campaigns, more research that creates awareness, education for patient organizations, communication of real PV examples, creation of a targeted PV system, creation of a PV communication network that provides feedback to patients, improvement of understanding of all stakeholders, and a more proactive approach from national competent authorities.
CONCLUSION: Both study phases show congruent results regarding patients' involvement and the activities patient organizations perform to promote drug safety. Patient organizations progressively position themselves as stakeholders in PV, carrying out many activities that stimulate awareness and participation of their members in drug safety, but still face internal and external barriers that can hamper their involvement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32989664     DOI: 10.1007/s40264-020-00999-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Drug Saf        ISSN: 0114-5916            Impact factor:   5.606


  16 in total

Review 1.  Detection, verification, and quantification of adverse drug reactions.

Authors:  Bruno H Ch Stricker; Bruce M Psaty
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-07-03

2.  Expectations for feedback in adverse drug reporting by healthcare professionals in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Ingrid Oosterhuis; Florence P A M van Hunsel; Eugène P van Puijenbroek
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 5.606

3.  Evaluation of FDA safety-related drug label changes in 2010.

Authors:  Jean Lester; George A Neyarapally; Earlene Lipowski; Cheryl Fossum Graham; Marni Hall; Gerald Dal Pan
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2013-01-02       Impact factor: 2.890

Review 4.  Fifteen years of patient reporting -what have we learned and where are we heading to?

Authors:  Florence van Hunsel; Linda Härmark; Leàn Rolfes
Journal:  Expert Opin Drug Saf       Date:  2019-05-16       Impact factor: 4.250

5.  Understanding the role of patient organizations in health technology assessment.

Authors:  Tiago Moreira
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-12-14       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Patient-Focused Drug Development: A New Direction for Collaboration.

Authors:  Eleanor M Perfetto; Laurie Burke; Elisabeth M Oehrlein; Robert S Epstein
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 7.  Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how.

Authors:  José A Sacristán; Alfonso Aguarón; Cristina Avendaño-Solá; Pilar Garrido; Juan Carrión; Alipio Gutiérrez; Robert Kroes; Angeles Flores
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2016-04-27       Impact factor: 2.711

8.  Promoting and Protecting Public Health: How the European Union Pharmacovigilance System Works.

Authors:  Aniello Santoro; Georgy Genov; Almath Spooner; June Raine; Peter Arlett
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 5.606

9.  Reimbursement of orphan drugs in Belgium: what (else) matters?

Authors:  Eline Picavet; David Cassiman; Steven Simoens
Journal:  Orphanet J Rare Dis       Date:  2014-09-12       Impact factor: 4.123

10.  Towards a Cancer Mission in Horizon Europe.

Authors:  Anton Berns; Ulrik Ringborg; Alexander Eggermont; Michael Baumann; Fabien Calvo; Angelika Eggert; Carolina Espina; Douglas Hanahan; Denis Lacombe; Francesco de Lorenzo; Simon Oberst; Thierry Philip; Joachim Schüz; Josep Tabernero; Julio E Celis
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 6.603

View more
  4 in total

1.  Inappropriate Prescriptions in Older People-Translation and Adaptation to Portuguese of the STOPP/START Screening Tool.

Authors:  Luís Monteiro; Matilde Monteiro-Soares; Cristiano Matos; Inês Ribeiro-Vaz; Andreia Teixeira; Carlos Martins
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-06-04       Impact factor: 4.614

Review 2.  Factors Contributing to Best Practices for Patient Involvement in Pharmacovigilance in Europe: A Stakeholder Analysis.

Authors:  Monica van Hoof; Katherine Chinchilla; Linda Härmark; Cristiano Matos; Pedro Inácio; Florence van Hunsel
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2022-08-25       Impact factor: 5.228

3.  Guiding axes for drug safety management of pharmacovigilance centres during the COVID-19 era.

Authors:  Renato Ferreira-da-Silva; Inês Ribeiro-Vaz; Manuela Morato; Jorge Junqueira Polónia
Journal:  Int J Clin Pharm       Date:  2021-06-02

4.  Systematising Pharmacovigilance Engagement of Patients, Healthcare Professionals and Regulators: A Practical Decision Guide Derived from the International Risk Governance Framework for Engagement Events and Discourse.

Authors:  Priya Bahri; Antoine Pariente
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2021-09-15       Impact factor: 5.606

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.