ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Qualitative Study of General Public Views towards Adverse Drug Reactions in Lithuania.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers and enablers of adverse drug event reporting in South Africa: a cross-sectional survey of medicine users.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Awareness and Attitudes Regarding Adverse Drug Events and Reporting in South Africa.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2025Article
- Assessment of public awareness and perspectives towards adverse drug reaction reporting system in Karachi, Pakistan.PloS one · 2025Article
- Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting among the General Public in Lithuania: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Views on Suspected Adverse Drug Events in Older Adults with Chronic Conditions: A Qualitative Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Direct patient reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is available in many countries, as patients are often knowledgeable about their health conditions and medicines. This study aimed to assess whether patients can recognize ADRs and whether they know how to proceed with ADR reporting. The study also assesses ADR information sources and the main barriers to reporting. Through the purposive and snowball sampling techniques, 42 consumers participated in focus group discussions. All discussions were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed for thematic content analysis. The thematic content analysis yielded four major themes: knowledge about medication safety, ADRs, and pharmacovigilance; information sources about medicines and ADRs; knowledge about ADR reporting; attitudes towards ADR reporting; benefits of ADR reporting; barriers to ADR reporting. Participants were able to identify ADRs and used different information sources about medicines and ADRs to confirm their beliefs. However, the poor communication between consumers, pharmacists, and physicians is the main barrier to ADR reporting. This study identified the challenges in relation to pharmacovigilance in Lithuania from patients' perspectives. Our study indicated a lack of clearly set standards and communication guidelines between patients, physicians, and pharmacists. Active pharmacovigilance might help develop consumer habits regarding the reporting of ADRs in the presence of spontaneous pharmacovigilance.
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.