Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23061782›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2012

Healthcare professionals' self-reported experiences and preferences related to direct healthcare professional communications: a survey conducted in the Netherlands.

Sigrid Piening, Flora M Haaijer-Ruskamp, Pieter A de Graeff, Sabine M J M Straus, Peter G M Mol

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sigrid PieningDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center, The Netherlands.
Flora M Haaijer-Ruskamp
Pieter A de Graeff
Sabine M J M Straus
Peter G M Mol

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn Europe, Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs) are important tools to inform healthcare professionals of serious, new drug safety issues. However, this tool has not always been successful in effectively communicating the desired actions to healthcare professionals.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to explore healthcare providers' experiences and their preferences for improvement of risk communication, comparing views of general practitioners (GPs), internists, community pharmacists and hospital pharmacists.

methodsA questionnaire was developed and pilot tested to assess experiences and preferences of Dutch healthcare professionals with DHPCs. The questionnaire and two reminders were sent to a random sample of 3488 GPs, internists and community and hospital pharmacists in the Netherlands. Descriptive statistics were used to describe demographic characteristics of the respondents. Chi squares, ANOVAs and the Wilcoxon signed rank test were used, when appropriate, to compare healthcare professional groups.

resultsThe overall response rate was 34% (N = 1141, ranging from 24% for internists to 46% for community pharmacists). Healthcare providers trusted safety information more when provided by the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) than by the pharmaceutical industry. This was more the case for GPs than for the other healthcare professionals. Respondents preferred safety information to be issued by the MEB, the Dutch Pharmacovigilance Center or their own professional associations. The preferred alternative channels of drug safety information were e-mail, medical journals and electronic prescribing systems.

conclusionsSafety information of drugs does not always reach healthcare professionals through DHPCs. To improve current risk communication of drug safety issues, alternative and/or additional methods of risk communication should be developed using electronic methods and medical journals. Moreover, (additional) risk communication coming from an independent source such as the MEB should be considered. Special effort is needed to reach GPs.

Indexed as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsCommunicationPharmacovigilanceAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleNetherlandsPrescription DrugsSelf ReportStatistics as TopicPrescription Drugs

Identifiers

PMID23061782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.