Survey of patients’ experiences and their certainty of suspected adverse drug reactions
- 302 Downloads
Background Patients are best placed to recognize and monitor their own experiences of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), however they may need medicines information to help them do so. In Thailand patients rarely receive information leaflets, but are permitted to report ADRs directly to the regulator. Objectives To determine frequency of ADRs reported by hospital out-patients, the information sources used to evaluate suspected ADRs and patients’ confidence in ADR identification. Setting Srinagarind hospital in Khon Kaen, the second-largest province of North-eastern Thailand. Methods A questionnaire designed for self-completion and distributed to out-patients at this tertiary hospital using systematic random sampling over a 2-month period. Main outcome measures Frequency of reported ADRs, information sources confirming ADRs and degree of confidence in ADR identification. Results Of 1,195 questionnaires distributed, 1,044 usable responses were obtained (87.4 %). The majority of respondents were female (57.1 %) with average age 39.6 ± 13.6 years. Of 1,044 valid questionnaires, 257 (24.7 %) patients indicated they had experienced an ADR with high (56.0 %) and moderate (31.9 %) degree of confidence in ADR identification. The most frequent causative agent was an anti-infective (19.1 % of the patients). Major sources of information used for ADR assessment were healthcare professionals (35.5 %) and past ADR experience (25.5 %), with information leaflets being used infrequently (14.6 %). Conclusions This study showed high frequency of ADRs among Thai patients who were mostly confident about casual relationships with medicines. Patients mostly used healthcare professionals as confirmation source to evaluate suspected ADRs. Reliable medicines information sources such as information leaflets should be made more widely available.
KeywordsAdverse drug reactions Medicines information Patients’ experience Patient reporting Thailand
Special thanks are expressed to all patients who completed the questionnaires and to all staff who provided help in data collection at Srinagarind Hospital.
This study received financial support from Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Khon Kaen University. The funding organization had no role in the design and conduct of the study; in the collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review or approval of the manuscript.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interests to declare.
- 2.US General Accounting Office. FDA Drug Review: Postapproval Risks, 1976-85. Washington: US General Accounting Office; 1990.Google Scholar
- 14.Avery AJ, Anderson C, Bond CM, Fortnum H, Gifford A, Hannaford PC, et al. Evaluation of patient reporting of adverse drug reactions to the UK ‘Yellow Card Scheme’: literature review, descriptive and qualitative analyses, and questionnaire surveys. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15:1–234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Rolfes L, van Hunsel F, Wilkes S, Grootheest KV, Puijenbroek EV. Adverse drug reaction reports of patients and healthcare professionals-differences in reported information. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014. [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
- 17.Herxheimer A, Crombag R, Alves TL. Adverse drug reactions: a fifteen-country survey and literature review [Internet]. Health Action International Europe. 2010. http://consumers.cochrane.org/sites/consumers.cochrane.org/files/uploads/10%20May%202010%20Report%20Direct%20Patient%20Reporting%20of%20ADRs.pdf.
- 27.Center Health Product Vigilance. ADR reporting 2012. Bangkok: Thai Food and Drug Administration, Ministry of Public Health; 2012.Google Scholar
- 30.Phueanpinit P, Jarernsiripornkul N, Pongwecharak J, Krska J. Hospital pharmacists’ roles and attitudes in providing information on the safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in Thailand. Int J Clin Pharm. 2014;36:1205–12.Google Scholar