Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32296857›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2020

Knowledge, attitudes and practices of health care professionals towards adverse drug reaction reporting in public sector primary health care facilities in a South African district.

H M Haines, J C Meyer, R S Summers, B B Godman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Adverse-drug reaction reporting by Pharm D students during hospital training.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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.

H M HainesTshwane Regional Pharmacy, Tshwane, South Africa.
J C MeyerDivision of Public Health Pharmacy and Management, School of Pharmacy, Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, Molotlegi Street, Ga-Rankuwa, 0208, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0462-5713
R S SummersDivision of Public Health Pharmacy and Management, School of Pharmacy, Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, Molotlegi Street, Ga-Rankuwa, 0208, South Africa.
B B GodmanDivision of Public Health Pharmacy and Management, School of Pharmacy, Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, Molotlegi Street, Ga-Rankuwa, 0208, South Africa. brian.godman@strath.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6539-6972

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAdverse drug reactions (ADRs) have an appreciable impact on patients' health. Little is known however about ADR reporting in ambulatory care environments especially in low- and middle-income countries. Consequently, our aim was to determine knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) among health care professionals (HCPs) towards ADR reporting in primary health care (PHC) facilities in South Africa. The findings will be used to direct future activities.

methodsDescriptive, cross-sectional design using quantitative methodology among 8 public sector community health care centres and 40 PHC clinics in the Tshwane Health District, Gauteng Province. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to 218 HCPs, including all key groups.

resultsA total of 200 responses were received (91.7%). Although an appropriate attitude towards ADR reporting existed, the actual frequency of ADR reporting was low (16.0%). Of the respondents, 60.5% did not know how to report, where to report or when to report an ADR and 51.5% said the level of their clinical knowledge made it difficult to decide whether or not an ADR had occurred. Over 97.5% stated they should be reporting ADRs with 89% feeling that ADR reporting is a professional obligation and over 70% that ADR reporting should be compulsory. When results were combined, the overall mean score in terms of positive or preferred practices for ADR reporting was 24.6% with pharmacists having the highest scores.

conclusionUnder-reporting of ADRs with gaps in KAP was evident. There is a serious and urgent need for education and training of HCPs on ADR reporting in South Africa.

Indexed as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelPrimary Health CareCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMalePublic SectorSouth AfricaSurveys and QuestionnairesAdverse drug reactionsAmbulatory careHealth care professionalsPharmacovigilanceSouth Africa

Identifiers

PMID32296857
PMCPMC7306046

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.