ArticlePatient preference and adherence2018
Consumer opinions on adverse events associated with medicines and vaccines.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2018. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Views on the Development and Use of a New Digital Adverse Drug Event Reporting Platform in Australia: A Qualitative Study.Drug safety · 2025Article
- Co-Designing a Consumer-Focused Digital Reporting Health Platform to Improve Adverse Medicine Event Reporting: Protocol for a Multimethod Research Project (the ReMedi Project).JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Adverse Events Following Immunization with Novel Oral Polio Vaccine Type 2, and the Experience and Challenges of Reporting in Sierra Leone [Letter].Drug, healthcare and patient safety · 2024Article
- Immediate side effects of Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine: A nationwide survey of vaccinated people in Israel, December 2020 to March 2021.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDespite the availability of an Australian consumer adverse event (AE) reporting system for over 50 years, reporting rates remain low. A comprehensive understanding of consumer perceptions and experiences regarding AEs is needed to further ascertain factors impacting their engagement in AE reporting.
aimThe aim of this study was to explore consumer opinions about AEs potentially associated with medicines and vaccines, and their experiences and understanding of managing and reporting AEs.
methodsSix focus groups were conducted across metropolitan Sydney with a total of 48 adult participants. A semi-structured focus group topic guide was developed to explore consumers' understanding, experiences, and actions taken in relation to AEs; and perspectives on managing treatment benefits and harms. Discussions were audio-recorded with participant permission and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were thematically analyzed.
resultsConsumers acknowledged the potential for side effects (SEs), however inaccurately estimated SE risk in response to verbal descriptors such as "common." Consumer appraisal of treatment benefits and harms was influenced by factors such as medical condition(s), previous experiences, and beliefs. Although many had experienced SEs, consumers only reported them if considered severe or troublesome. Minimal awareness of consumer AE reporting systems was evident. Doctors were the primary avenue for reporting; consumers preferred doctors to act as the intermediary in reporting AEs to an independent body.
conclusionConsumers' lack of awareness of AE reporting systems was evident. With the complexities inherent in benefit/harm risk appraisal, information seeking, and AE reporting preferences, better consumer understanding of AEs and the systems available for reporting is needed.
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.