Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 34, Issue 5, pp 693–698 | Cite as

Attitudes of Portuguese health professionals toward adverse drug reaction reporting

  • Sílvia Isabel dos Santos Pernas
  • Maria Teresa HerdeiroEmail author
  • Elena Lopez-Gonzalez
  • Odete A. B. da Cruz e Silva
  • Adolfo Figueiras
Short Research Report

Abstract

Background Adverse drug reactions are a major public health problem. Underreporting is an important limitation of all reporting systems, partially due to attitudes of health professionals. Objective This study sought: (1) to evaluate the reproducibility of a questionnaire on attitudes to and knowledge of adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting among physicians, nurses and pharmacists: and (2) to compare the attitudes and knowledge of these three groups of health professionals. Methods This study targeted a sample of physicians (n = 30), nurses (n = 30) and pharmacists (n = 20) in the central region of Portugal. A structured questionnaire was administered to each health professional twice, at an interval of 2–4 weeks. Most attitudes were based on Inman’s ‘seven deadly sins’ and measured using a continuous visual analog scale (VAS), with answers scored from 0 (total disagreement) to 10 (total agreement). Questionnaire reproducibility was determined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results The response rate was 100 %. Attitudes that registered the highest ICCs were Complacency (the belief that really serious ADRs are well documented by the time a drug is marketed) (physicians, ICC 0.84; nurses, ICC 0.70; pharmacists, ICC 0.99), and Diffidence (the belief that one would only report an ADR if one were sure that it was related to the use of a particular drug) (physicians, ICC 0.73; nurses, ICC 0.65; pharmacists, ICC 0.98). In most cases, there were no differences among the three groups of professionals in terms of attitudes and knowledge. Conclusions The Horizontal continuous VAS is reliable to detect the knowledge and attitudes about ADRs.

Keywords

ADR reporting Adverse drug reactions Health professionals Pharmacovigilance Portugal 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to express their sincere thanks to all the physicians, pharmacists and nurses who responded to the questionnaire, and specifically to Prof. João Manuel Torrão of Aveiro University and Prof. João Carlos Caldas of the ISCSN-CESPU for their linguistic/interpretative evaluation of the questionnaire. Lastly, thanks must go to Michael Benedict for his help with the English version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by grants from the Science & Technology Institute (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) to MTH (SFRH/BPD/35746/2007), and partly funded by Health Research Fund (Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria- FIS) from the Spanish Ministry of Health to AF (grant 99/1189).

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest which are directly relevant to the content of this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Jr Am Med Assoc. 1998;279:1200–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leendertse AJ, Visser D, Egberts A, van den Bemt PMLA. The relationship between study characteristics and the prevalence of medication-related hospitalizations: a literature review and novel analysis. Drug Saf. 2010;33(3):233–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    WHO: Importance of Pharmacovigilance. Geneve: World Health Organization (2002). ISBN: 924-1590157.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Erill S. Avances en las técnicas de detección de reacciones adverses a los medicamentos. In: Laporte J, Salva JÁ, editors. Avances en terapéutica, vol. 5. Barcelona: Editorial Salvat; 1973, p. 124–48. ISBN: 978-84-97991-10-0.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smith CC, Bennett PM, Pearce HM, Harrison PI, Reynolds DJ, Aronson JK, et al. Adverse drug reaction in a hospital general medical unit meriting notification to the Committee on Safety of Medicine. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1996;42:423–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pirmohamed M, Breckenridge A, Kitteringham N, Park BK. Adverse drug reactions. Br Med J. 1998;316:1295–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vaz FICPR. Estratégias de combate à subnotificação de Reacções Adversas a Medicamentos, Intervenção de reforço em profissionais de saúde através de entrevistas telefónicas e Workshops. Dissertação de Mestrado. In: Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade do Porto. (2009). http://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/bitstream/10216/21957/2/Dissertao.pdf.
  8. 8.
    Inman W. Assessment of drug safety problems. In: Gent M, Honolulu SI, editors. Epidemiological issues in reported drug-induced illnesses. McMaster University Library Press: Honolulu; 1976; p. 17–24. ISBN: 0919592023.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Inman W, Weber JCT. The United Kingdom. In: Inman WHW, editor. Monitoring for drug safety, 2nd edn. Lancaster: MTP Press Ltd. 1986; p. 13–47. ISBN: 0852007213.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Inman W. Attitudes to adverse drug-reaction reporting. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1996;41:433–5.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Figueiras A, Tato F, Fontaiñas J, Gestal-Otero JJ. Influence of physicians’ attitudes on reporting adverse drug events: a case-control. Med Care. 1999;37(8):809–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A, Polónia J, Gestal-Otero JJ. Physicians’ attitudes and adverse drug reaction reporting: a case-control study in Portugal. Drug Saf. 2005;28(9):825–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A, Polónia J, Gestal-Otero JJ. Influence of pharmacists’ attitudes on adverse drug reaction reporting: a case-control study in Portugal. Drug Saf. 2006;29(4):331–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Green FC, Mottram DR, Rowe PH, Pirmohamed M. Attitudes and knowledge of hospital pharmacists to adverse drug reaction reporting. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2001;51:81–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rogers AS, Israel E, Smith CR, Levine D, McBean AM, Valente C, et al. Physician knowledge, attitudes and behaviour related to reporting adverse drug events. Arch Intern Med. 1988;148:1596–600.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scott HD, Thatcher A, Rosenbaum SE, Waters WJ, Green M. Adverse drug reaction reporting systems: the United Kingdom and the Unit States. R I Med J. 1988;71:179–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Backstrom M, Ekman E, Mjorndal T. Adverse drug reaction reporting by nurses in Sweden. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2007;63:613–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nickerson CAE. A note on ‘A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility’. Biometrics. 1997;53(4):1503–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Quinn C, Haber MJ, Pan Y. Use of the concordance correlation coefficient when examining agreement in dyadic research. Nurs Res. 2009;58(5):368–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Siegel S, Castellan NP. Nonparametric statistics for behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. USA: McGraw-Hill. 1988. ISBN 978-0070573574.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lopez-Gonzalez E, Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A. Determinants of underreporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Saf. 2009;32:19–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Russell VL. Some practical guidelines for effective sample size determination. Am Stat. 2001;55(3):187–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sílvia Isabel dos Santos Pernas
    • 1
  • Maria Teresa Herdeiro
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    Email author
  • Elena Lopez-Gonzalez
    • 6
  • Odete A. B. da Cruz e Silva
    • 1
    • 2
  • Adolfo Figueiras
    • 6
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal
  2. 2.Center for Cell Biology, Biology DepartmentUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal
  3. 3.Health Technology Research Center, Centro de Investigação em Tecnologias da Saúde, CITSInstituto Politécnico de Saúde do Norte-Cooperativa de Ensino Superior Politécnico e Universitário: IPSN-CESPUGandraPortugal
  4. 4.Northern Pharmacovigilance Unit, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal
  5. 5.Health Technology and Information Systems Research Center, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal
  6. 6.Department of Preventive Medicine and Public HealthUniversity of Santiago de CompostelaSantiago de CompostelaPortugal
  7. 7.Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology & Public HealthCIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública, CIBERESPBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations