ArticleDrug safety2020
Community Pharmacists' Views and Experiences with ADR Reporting for Complementary Medicines: A Qualitative Study in New Zealand.
Article in Drug safety, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Scoping Review of Published Literature on the Contributions of the Natural Health Products (NHPs) Industry to Pharmacovigilance for NHPs.Drug safety · 2026Article
- Thai stakeholders' awareness and perceptions of the patient adverse event reporting system for herbal medicines: a qualitative study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023Article
- Drug-Related Deaths in China: An Analysis of a Spontaneous Reporting System.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDetecting signals of safety concerns associated with complementary medicines (CMs) relies on spontaneous reports submitted by health professionals and patients/consumers. Community pharmacists are well placed to identify and report suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with CMs, but pharmacists submit few CMs ADR reports.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to explore New Zealand community pharmacists' views and experiences with ADR reporting for CMs.
methodsQualitative, in-depth, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 27 practising community pharmacists identified through purposive and convenience sampling. Data were analysed using a general inductive approach.
resultsParticipants were familiar with systems for reporting ADRs, believed ADR reporting for CMs important, and that pharmacists should contribute. However, few submitted reports of CMs ADRs and none encouraged patients/consumers to do so. Participants explained this was because they had never been informed by patients about ADRs associated with CMs. Participants said they would report serious ADRs; time pressures, lack of certainty around causality, lack of awareness of mechanisms for reporting CMs ADRs, and lack of remuneration were deterrents to reporting. Participants were aware of intensive-monitoring studies for prescription medicines, understood the rationale for considering this approach for CMs and recognised there would be potential practical difficulties.
conclusionsParticipants used their knowledge of CMs safety concerns to minimise risk of harms to consumers from CMs use, but most had a passive approach to identifying and reporting ADRs for CMs. There is substantial potential for pharmacists to adopt proactive strategies in pharmacovigilance for CMs, particularly in recognising and reporting ADRs, and empowering CMs users to do the same.
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.