ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2020
Patients' experiences on adverse drug reactions reporting: a qualitative 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 8 papers, 4 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Empowering citizens to spontaneously report suspected adverse drug reaction: Systematic literature review of interventions and their impact.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Factors associated with underreporting of adverse drug reactions by patients: a systematic review.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023Pooled it
- Factors that influence patient and public adverse drug reaction reporting: a systematic review using the theoretical domains framework.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Mobile Medical Apps in Ensuring Medication Safety Among Patients With Chronic Diseases: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Pooled it
- Patterns of Spontaneous Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting in Germany From 2012 to 2021.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2026Article
- Coping strategies for managing medication side effects among patients with chronic diseases in Northwest Ethiopia: An interpretive phenomenological study.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Article
- Strengthening pharmacovigilance through patient reporting: a scoping review of awareness, barriers, and facilitators.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2026Review
- Teaching Pharmacovigilance to Healthcare Students: Identifying Gaps and Opportunities for Improvement.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSpontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is an important source of information for post-marketing drug safety evaluation. Most countries have public access to reporting systems, but patients report only 3% of all ADRs. Little is known about factors affecting patient reporting. Our aim was to explore patients' experiences reporting ADRs and their views on the usability of the Canadian Vigilance reporting forms on MedEffect.
methodsAn interpretive description qualitative study was used. Adults in Canada, who experienced an ADR, were invited to participate through social media (Kijiji, Facebook, Twitter) and by associations (e.g., Patients Canada or Canadian Arthritis Society). Participants were interviewed in English and French using structured interview guides. Inductive content analysis was used.
resultsFifteen interviews were conducted from October 2014 to May 2015. Two participants reported ADRs to MedEffect, and others to physicians and/or pharmacists. Motives for reporting were intolerable side effect impacting daily activities and encouragement from others to report (e.g., family, colleagues). Factors that interfered with reporting were physicians normalized or minimized the side effect, confusion on what to report, no feedback after report submission to MedEffect, and previous experience with side effects. MedEffect forms were described as comprehensive and important, but its usability was affected by the number of questions and complexity of some questions.
conclusionsMost participants were unaware of MedEffect and reported ADRs to physicians and pharmacists. Several barriers and motives affected patients' reporting of ADRs. MedEffect form could be simplified for use by patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32661571What 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.