ArticleJournal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics2019
Nonmedical prescriber experiences of training and competence to report adverse drug reactions in the UK.
Article in Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 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 Associated with Underreporting of Adverse Drug Reactions by Health Care Professionals: A Systematic Review Update.Drug safety · 2023Pooled it
- Risks Associated with the Use of Intranasal Corticosteroids: An Analysis of Adverse Reactions Reported to EudraVigilance.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Distributed Ledger Infrastructure to Verify Adverse Event Reporting (DeLIVER): Proposal for a Proof-of-Concept Study.JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
- Nonmedical prescriber experiences of training and competence to report adverse drug reactions in the UK.Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
WHAT IS KNOWN AND
objectiveAdverse drug reaction reporting in the UK is lower than expected based on epidemiological data. This study aims to explore (a) nonmedical prescribers' (NMP) confidence in identifying and reporting ADRs, (b) NMP prescribing habits and engagement with the Yellow Card Scheme (YCS) and (c) NMP desire for future training in the identification and reporting of ADRs.
methodsA survey was distributed across NMP networks in the north-west of England using Survey Monkey. Univariate analyses were performed to compare the features of reporters and nonreporters, Kruskal-Wallis H tests for comparisons within multiple subgroups and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient for response associations between answers to ordered-category questions. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A total of 570 responses were available for analysis, an estimated response rate of 20%. Less than half (n = 219; 38.4%) reported submitting a Yellow Card to the YCS, and the majority of those individuals have submitted five or less Yellow Cards; 28 responders reported more than five submissions. Being professionally qualified for more years (linear regression: B = 0.30, P < 0.0005; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.05) and receiving additional training support about the YCS (chi-squared: χ WHAT IS NEW AND
conclusionStrategies for improving the translation of theoretical knowledge about ADRs into practical skills in identifying ADRs, and subsequently reporting them, will be important for improving pharmacovigilance practice.
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.