Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25657902›Full record

ArticlePerspectives in clinical research

A questionnaire study on the knowledge, attitude, and the practice of pharmacovigilance among the healthcare professionals in a teaching hospital in South India.

Sandeep Kumar Gupta, Roopa P Nayak, R Shivaranjani, Surendra Kumar Vidyarthi

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives in clinical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 139 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Knowledge, attitude and practice of hospital pharmacists towards pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction reporting in Najran, Saudi Arabia.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. The development of a pharmacovigilance system in Bahrain.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2022
    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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sandeep Kumar GuptaDepartment of Pharmacology, Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Medical College and Hospital, Siruvachur, Perambalur, Tamil Nadu, India.
Roopa P NayakDepartment of Pharmacology, Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Medical College and Hospital, Siruvachur, Perambalur, Tamil Nadu, India.
R ShivaranjaniDhanalakshmi Srinivasan Medical College and Hospital, Siruvachur, Perambalur, Tamil Nadu, India.
Surendra Kumar VidyarthiDepartment of Pharmacology, Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Medical College and Hospital, Siruvachur, Perambalur, Tamil Nadu, India.
Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Group of Institutions · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe primary objective of this study was to evaluate the knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) of the healthcare professionals about pharmacovigilance in Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Medical College and Hospital (DSMCH), Perambalur (Tamil Nadu), a tertiary care teaching hospital. The second primary objective was to assess the causation of underreporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) as it needs to be well-assessed in India. The secondary objective was to compare the findings of this study with the results of the published studies from India on evaluation of the KAP of pharmacovigilance among healthcare professional. MATERIALS AND

methodsA cross-sectional study was carried out using a pretested questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed to assess the KAP regarding pharmacovigilance. The healthcare professionals (doctors, nurses, and pharmacists) working in the DSMCH, Perambalur (Tamil Nadu) during the study period were included. Only those who gave their consent to participate were included in the study. The data was analyzed by using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) statistical software, version 16.

resultsOne hundred and fifty pretested questionnaires were distributed among the healthcare professionals and 101 responded. 62.4% healthcare workers gave correct response regarding the definition of pharmacovigilance. 75.2% of healthcare workers were aware regarding the existence of a National Pharmacovigilance Program of India. 69.3% healthcare professional agreed that ADR reporting is a professional obligation for them. Among the participants, 64.4% have experienced ADRs in patients, but only 22.8% have ever reported ADR to pharmacovigilance center. Unfortunately only 53.5% healthcare workers have been trained for reporting adverse reactions. But, 97% healthcare professionals agreed that reporting of ADR is necessary and 92.1% were of the view that pharmacovigilance should be taught in detail to healthcare professional.

conclusionThis study demonstrated that knowledge and attitude towards pharmacovigilance is gradually improving among healthcare professionals, but unfortunately the actual practice of ADR reporting is still deficient among them.

Indexed as

Adverse drug reactionsattitudeknowledgepharmacovigilancepracticespontaneous reportingunder-reporting

Identifiers

PMID25657902
PMCPMC4314847
OpenAlexW2061076876

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.