Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29500798›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2018

Safety Communication Tools and Healthcare Professionals' Awareness of Specific Drug Safety Issues in Europe: A Survey Study.

Sieta T de Vries, Maartje J M van der Sar, Anna Marie Coleman, Yvette Escudero, Alfonso Rodríguez Pascual, Miguel-Ángel Maciá Martínez, Amelia Cupelli, Ilaria Baldelli, Ivana Šipić, Adriana Andrić and 4 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.

Sieta T de VriesDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6090-2434
Maartje J M van der SarDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Anna Marie ColemanHealth Products Regulatory Authority (HPRA), Dublin, Ireland.
Yvette EscuderoSpanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices (AEMPS), Madrid, Spain.
Alfonso Rodríguez PascualSpanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices (AEMPS), Madrid, Spain.
Miguel-Ángel Maciá MartínezSpanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices (AEMPS), Madrid, Spain.
Amelia CupelliItalian Medicines Agency (AIFA), Rome, Italy.
Ilaria BaldelliItalian Medicines Agency (AIFA), Rome, Italy.
Ivana ŠipićAgency for Medicinal Products and Medical Devices of Croatia (HALMED), Zagreb, Croatia.
Adriana AndrićAgency for Medicinal Products and Medical Devices of Croatia (HALMED), Zagreb, Croatia.
Line MichanDanish Medicines Agency (DKMA), Copenhagen, Denmark.
Petra DenigDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Peter G M MolDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. p.g.m.mol@umcg.nl.
SCOPE work package 6
University Medical Center Groningen · NLItalian Medicines Agency · ITAgencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios · ESAgency for Medicinal Products and Medical Devices of Croatia · HRDanish Medicines Agency · DKHealth and Safety Authority · IE

Funding

The work was conducted in the context of a European Commission sponsored joint action, Strengthening Collaboration for Operating Pharmacovigilance in Europe (SCOPE). ECM-2294.The work was conducted in the context of a European Commission sponsored joint action, Strengthening Collaboration for Operating Pharmacovigilance in Europe (SCOPE). The survey was made possible through a tendered sub contract ITT-1301
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNational competent authorities (NCAs) use Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs) to communicate new drug safety issues to healthcare professionals (HCPs). More knowledge is needed about the effectiveness of DHPCs and the extent to which they raise awareness of new safety issues among HCPs.

objectiveThe objective was to assess and compare general practitioners' (GPs'), cardiologists', and pharmacists' familiarity with DHPCs as communication tools, their awareness of specific drug safety issues, and the sources through which they had become aware of the specific issues.

methodsGPs, cardiologists, and pharmacists from nine European countries (Croatia, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the UK) completed a web-based survey. The survey was conducted in the context of the Strengthening Collaboration for Operating Pharmacovigilance in Europe (SCOPE) Joint Action. Respondents were asked about their familiarity with DHPCs in general and their awareness of safety issues that had recently been communicated and involved the following drugs: combined hormonal contraceptives, diclofenac, valproate, and ivabradine. Those HCPs who were aware of the specific safety issues were subsequently asked to indicate the source through which they had become aware of them. Differences between professions in familiarity with DHPCs and awareness were tested using a Pearson χ

resultsOf the 3288 included respondents, 54% were GPs, 40% were pharmacists, and 7% were cardiologists. The number of respondents ranged from 67 in Denmark to 916 in Spain. Most respondents (92%) were familiar with DHPCs, with one significant difference between the professions: pharmacists were more familiar than GPs in Italy (99 vs 90%, P = 0.004). GPs' awareness ranged from 96% for the diclofenac issue to 70% for the ivabradine issue. A similar pattern was shown for pharmacists (91% aware of the diclofenac issue to 66% of the ivabradine issue). Cardiologists' awareness ranged from 91% for the ivabradine issue to 34% for the valproate issue. Overall, DHPCs were a common source through which GPs (range: 45% of those aware of the contraceptives issue to 60% of those aware of the valproate issue), cardiologists (range: 33% for the contraceptives issue to 61% for the valproate issue), and pharmacists (range: 41% for the contraceptives issue to 51% for the ivabradine issue) had become aware of the specific safety issues, followed by information on websites or in newsletters.

conclusionsGPs, cardiologists, and pharmacists were to a similar extent (highly) familiar with DHPCs, but they differed in awareness levels of specific safety issues. Cardiologists were less aware of safety issues associated with non-cardiology drugs even if these had cardiovascular safety concerns. This implies that additional strategies may be needed to reach specialists when communicating safety issues regarding drugs outside their therapeutic area but with risks related to their field of specialisation. DHPCs were an important source for the different professions to become aware of specific safety issues, but other sources were also often used. NCAs should consider the use of a range of sources when communicating important safety issues to HCPs.

Indexed as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsAttitude of Health PersonnelAwarenessHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeSurveys and QuestionnairesCommunicationCross-Sectional StudiesEuropeFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID29500798
PMCPMC5990574
OpenAlexW2791931915

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.