ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2017
Public confidence in ADR identification and their views on ADRreporting: mixed methods study.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Factors associated with underreporting of adverse drug reactions by patients: a systematic review.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023Pooled it
- Factors that influence patient and public adverse drug reaction reporting: a systematic review using the theoretical domains framework.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023Pooled it
- Evaluation of a self-screening tool and patient alert cards to help patients identify and manage severe adverse drug reactions.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Accuracy in patient-reported adverse drug reactions and their recognition: a mixed-methods study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024Article
- Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting among the General Public in Lithuania: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Severity and Management of Adverse Drug Reactions Reported by Patients and Healthcare Professionals: A Cross-Sectional Survey.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- A cross-sectional study: comparison of public perceptions of adverse drug reaction reporting and monitoring in eastern and western China.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Article
- Qualitative Study of General Public Views towards Adverse Drug Reactions in Lithuania.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Confidence and accuracy in identification of adverse drug reactions reported by outpatients.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2018Article
- Consumer opinions on adverse events associated with medicines and vaccines.Patient preference and adherence · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe value of patients as potential reporters into pharmacovigilance systems is acknowledged worldwide and allowed in Thailand. However, nothing is known about the Thai public's awareness of direct patient reporting facility or their views concerning it. This study aimed to determine confidence among members of the public in identifying suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs), information sources they use and their views towards direct ADR reporting.
methodsMixed methods study consisting of self-administered questionnaires (phase 1) and semi-structured, face-to-face interviews (phase 2) with members of the public recruited in primary care centres, pharmacies and public places during October 2013 to February 2015. All questionnaire respondents reporting an ADR were invited to participate in phase 2. Written informed consent was made before the start of the interview.
resultsThere were 414 (17.2%) of 2400 questionnaire respondents who had experienced an ADR, almost half (46%) of whom used their own experience to identify ADRs. Having a degree, having a severe ADR and consulting a physician increased respondent confidence in the association between medicine and suspected ADR. The majority (27) of the 30 interviewees indicated general agreement with patient reporting to regulatory authorities. Four main themes emerged covering reasons for reporting ADRs including expectations of health authorities, healthcare professionals and manufacturers, and helping other people. Awareness of direct reporting was low with a desire for a range of reporting methods.
conclusionResults indicate support among the Thai general public of direct ADR reporting. Greater promotion of direct reporting by all healthcare professionals is required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27837337What 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.