ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2014
'The more you link, the more you risk …' - a focus group study exploring views about data linkage for pharmacovigilance.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unlocking insights: general practice staff perspectives on sharing general practice data for research - a scoping review.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Pharmacovigilance and bioethics: the importance of a neglected relationship.Frontiers in drug safety and regulation · 2025Review
- Article
- Linking NHS data for pediatric pharmacovigilance: Results of a Delphi survey.Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThe aim of this study was to assess opinions of frontline healthcare professionals on the linking of routinely collected national (Scottish) paediatric data for the purpose of identifying earlier signals of adverse drug reactions.
methodsStratified purposive sampling led to profession-specific focus groups with pharmacists, nurses and medical doctors from primary and secondary care in different Scottish Health Boards. A topic guide was used to explore the proposed data linkage of routinely collected paediatric data. Discussions were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed using a framework approach to identify themes. Ethical approval was obtained from the North of Scotland Research Ethics Service.
resultsSix focus groups were conducted in 2011 with 22 participants. Views of the proposed data linkage were generally positive. Several issues were identified, including lack of clarity on data ownership and concerns about diversion of funding. Identified issues were at a practical rather than a strategic level.
conclusionsThis study identified that professional stakeholder groups are likely to find linkage of paediatric patient data acceptable. Barriers identified could be addressed. Focus group participants commented on the importance of informing patients and members of the public about the benefits of linking healthcare data. These findings clarify the steps that should be taken to ensure the acceptability of data linkage for pharmacovigilance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.