Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33937402›Full record

SynthesisBioMed research international2021

Nurses' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice in Relation to Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting: A Systematic Review.

Tahmine Salehi, Naiemeh Seyedfatemi, Mohammad Saeed Mirzaee, Maryam Maleki, Abbas Mardani

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BioMed research international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Adverse-drug reaction reporting by Pharm D students during hospital training.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2023
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Tahmine SalehiNursing Care Research Center, Department of Nursing Management, School of Nursing & Midwifery, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3481-9180
Naiemeh SeyedfatemiNursing Care Research Center, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5292-4219
Mohammad Saeed MirzaeeNursing Care Research Center, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0372-1383
Maryam MalekiSchool of Nursing & Midwifery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9017-380X
Abbas MardaniNursing Care Research Center, Department of Medical Surgical Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2861-6037

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo describe and synthesize aspects of knowledge, attitudes, and practice regarding pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting and to explore associated barriers from a nurse perspective.

methodsA systematic review was conducted. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge from January 2010 to October 2020 were searched. Original observational studies that were written in English and which focused on nurses' knowledge, attitudes, practice, and perceived barriers regarding pharmacovigilance and ADR reporting in various healthcare settings were included.

resultsTwenty-three studies published in English from 2010 to 2020 were retrieved during the search process. Overall, in the knowledge domain, the median percentages of nurses who were aware of the definitions of ADRs were 74.1%, while only 26.3% were aware of the adverse drug reaction reporting form. In the attitude domain, 84.6% of nurses believed ADR reporting to be important for patient/medicine safety and 37.1% had a fear of legal liability following ADR reporting. Although 67.1% of nurses encountered ADRs during their professional life, only 21.2% had a history of ADR reporting. In addition, lack of knowledge/training (median: 47.1%) was identified as the most common barrier in ADR reporting from a nursing viewpoint.

conclusionDespite positive nurse attitudes, knowledge and practice in relation to pharmacovigilance activities and ADR reporting did not occur regularly or often. Improving nurses' knowledge through in-service training and degree-level education and addressing the main barriers of ADR reporting may help to achieve an improved level of reporting.

Indexed as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsAttitude of Health PersonnelHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeNursesPharmacovigilanceHumans

Identifiers

PMID33937402
PMCPMC8062168

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.