9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Physicians’ Understanding and Practices of Pharmacovigilance: Qualitative Experience from a Lower Middle-Income Country

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Developed countries have established pharmacovigilance systems to monitor the safety of medicines. However, in the developing world, drug monitoring and reporting are facing enormous challenges. The current study was designed to explore the challenges related to the understanding and practices of physicians in reporting adverse drug reactions in Lahore, Pakistan. Through the purposive sampling technique, 13 physicians were interviewed. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed for a thematic content analysis. The thematic content analysis yielded six major themes: (1) Familiarity with medication safety and adverse drug reaction (ADR) concept, (2) Knowledge about pharmacovigilance activities, (3) Practices related to ADR reporting, (4) Barriers impeding ADR reporting, (5) Acknowledgement of the pharmacist’s role, and (6) System change needs. The majority of the physicians were unaware of the ADR reporting system; however, they were ready to accept practice changes if provided with the required skills and training. A lack of knowledge, time, and interest, a fear of legal liability, poor training, inadequate physicians’ and other healthcare professionals’ communication, and most importantly lack of a proper reporting system were reported as barriers. The findings based on emerging themes can be used to establish an effective pharmacovigilance system in Pakistan. Overall, physicians reported a positive attitude towards practice changes, provided the concerned authorities support and take interest in this poorly acknowledged but most needed component of the healthcare system.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions : a systematic review.

          The purpose of this review was to estimate the extent of under-reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to spontaneous reporting systems and to investigate whether there are differences between different types of ADRs. A systematic literature search was carried out to identify studies providing a numerical estimate of under-reporting. Studies were included regardless of the methodology used or the setting, e.g. hospital versus general practice. Estimates of under-reporting were either extracted directly from the published study or calculated from the study data. These were expressed as the percentage of ADRs detected from intensive data collection that were not reported to the relevant local, regional or national spontaneous reporting systems. The median under-reporting rate was calculated across all studies and within subcategories of studies using different methods or settings. In total, 37 studies using a wide variety of surveillance methods were identified from 12 countries. These generated 43 numerical estimates of under-reporting. The median under-reporting rate across the 37 studies was 94% (interquartile range 82-98%). There was no significant difference in the median under-reporting rates calculated for general practice and hospital-based studies. Five of the ten general practice studies provided evidence of a higher median under-reporting rate for all ADRs compared with more serious or severe ADRs (95% and 80%, respectively). In comparison, for five of the eight hospital-based studies the median under-reporting rate for more serious or severe ADRs remained high (95%). The median under-reporting rate was lower for 19 studies investigating specific serious/severe ADR-drug combinations but was still high at 85%. This systematic review provides evidence of significant and widespread under-reporting of ADRs to spontaneous reporting systems including serious or severe ADRs. Further work is required to assess the impact of under-reporting on public health decisions and the effects of initiatives to improve reporting such as internet reporting, pharmacist/nurse reporting and direct patient reporting as well as improved education and training of healthcare professionals.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Hospital admissions associated with adverse drug reactions: a systematic review of prospective observational studies.

            To determine the prevalence of hospital admissions associated with ADRs and examine differences in prevalence rates between population groups and methods of ADR detection. Studies were identified through electronic searches of Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, and MEDLINE to August 2007. There were no language restrictions. A systematic review was conducted of prospective observational studies that used the World Health Organization ADR definition. Subgroup analysis examined the influence of patient age groups and methods of ADR detection on reported ADR admission rates. All statistical analyses were performed using STATA v 9.0. Twenty-five studies were identified including 106,586 patients who were hospitalized; 2143 of these patients had experienced ADRs. The prevalence rates of ADRs ranged from 0.16% to 15.7%, with an overall median of 5.3% (interquartile range [IQR] 2.7-9.0%). Median ADR prevalence rates varied between age groups; for children, the ADR admission rate was 4.1% (IQR 0.16-5.3%), while the corresponding rates for adults and elderly patients were 6.3% (IQR 3.9-9.0%) and 10.7% (IQR 9.6-13.3%), respectively. ADR rates also varied depending on the methods of ADR detection employed in the different studies. Studies that employed multiple ADR detection methods, such as medical record review and patient interview, reported higher ADR admission rates compared with studies that used medical record review alone. Anti-infective drugs were most often associated with ADR admissions in children; cardiovascular drugs were most often associated with ADR admissions in adults and elderly patients. Approximately 5.3% of hospital admissions were associated with ADRs. Higher rates were found in elderly patients who are likely to be receiving multiple medications for long-term illnesses. The methods used to detect ADRs are also likely to explain much of the variation in the reported ADR prevalence rates between different studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Traditions: epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                25 March 2020
                April 2020
                : 17
                : 7
                : 2209
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Social and Administrative Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang 11800, Malaysia; azmihassali@ 123456gmail.com (M.A.H.); aneesurrehmanr90@ 123456gmail.com (A.u.R.); rahulraoraorao@ 123456gmail.com (J.M.)
                [2 ]University College of Pharmacy, University of the Punjab, Lahore 54000, Pakistan; furqan.pharmacy@ 123456pu.edu.pk
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8183-0855
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6502-8464
                Article
                ijerph-17-02209
                10.3390/ijerph17072209
                7178000
                32218355
                1d74af93-292b-4be3-abb9-7e3344ed2949
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 12 January 2020
                : 15 February 2020
                Categories
                Article

                Public health
                physicians,pakistan,pharmacovigilance,qualitative interview,drap
                Public health
                physicians, pakistan, pharmacovigilance, qualitative interview, drap

                Comments

                Comment on this article