ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2020
Stakeholders' knowledge, attitudes and practices to pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction reporting in clinical trials: a mixed methods study.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to explore the knowledge, attitudes and practices of health professionals working in clinical trials, to pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting.
methodsA mixed methods study comprising an online questionnaire disseminated from September to November 2018, three semi-structured interviews and four focus groups. The qualitative components were conducted with a random sample of questionnaire participants who had provided their contact details (n = 24). The qualitative interviews were conducted at a location convenient to the participant's place of work between October and December 2018.
resultsOne hundred forty-eight participants completed the questionnaire. Study coordinators/project managers represented the largest group of participants ( 28.6%, n = 38). Poor knowledge or understanding of ADR reporting was the most frequently cited barrier to ADR reporting (75%, n = 93). The most common enabler to reporting was having a clear understanding of an ADR definition (85.7%, n = 108). Focus group and interview participants described having limited staff as a barrier to reporting an ADR. They welcomed the prospect of pharmacovigilance training and indicated that face-to-face training would be preferred to provision of online training.
conclusionThis study highlights key factors that influence the reporting of ADRs in clinical trials. Although the findings are specifically related to the clinical trial environment in Ireland, they may provide a useful platform for optimising the future conduct of trials. This research suggests that ADR reporting may be improved through provision of enhanced pharmacovigilance training to clinical trial staff.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32507924What 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.