Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32661571›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2020

Patients' experiences on adverse drug reactions reporting: a qualitative study.

Rania Al Dweik, Sanni Yaya, Dawn Stacey, Dafna Kohen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
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 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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.

Rania Al DweikDepartment of Public Health, College of Health Science, Abu Dhabi University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. raldw034@uottawa.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3004-5894
Sanni YayaInterdisciplinary School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, Director, Series on Health and Society, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Dawn StaceyOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Program, School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Dafna KohenSchool of Epidemiology, Public Health, and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdolescentAdultAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsAgedAged, 80 and overCanadaDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchSocial MediaYoung AdultAdverse drug reaction reporting systemAdverse drug reactionsBarriersMotivesPatientPharmacovigilanceQualitative

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.