ArticleDrug safety2021
Motives to Report Adverse Drug Reactions to the National Agency: A Survey Study among Healthcare Professionals and Patients in Croatia, The Netherlands, and the UK.
Article in Drug safety, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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
- Increasing the reporting of adverse drug reaction-related hospitalizations using an ICD-10-based identification workflow: A multicentre study from Switzerland.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Observational
- Patterns of Spontaneous Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting in Germany From 2012 to 2021.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2026Article
- Knowledge, Attitudes and Sources of Information About Adverse Drug Reactions-A Survey Study Among Patients and Healthcare Professionals in Poland.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2026Article
- Strengthening pharmacovigilance through patient reporting: a scoping review of awareness, barriers, and facilitators.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2026Review
- Completeness of spontaneously reported adverse drug reactions in 4 databases.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Impact of Additional Monitoring on Pharmacovigilance and Pharmacists' Role: A Scoping Review.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2025Article
- Comparison of the Completeness of Spontaneously Reported Adverse Drug Reactions by Consumers, Healthcare Professionals, and Pharmaceutical Companies: An Evaluation of Databases From Two High-Income Countries.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2025Article
- Consumer views on the use of digital tools for reporting adverse drug reactions: a cross-sectional study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Consumers' knowledge and experiences of adverse drug reaction reporting in Australia: a national survey.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2024Article
- Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting among the General Public in Lithuania: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions Reporting: Healthcare Providers' Experiences from Southern Highland Tanzania.Advances in pharmacological and pharmaceutical sciences · 2023Article
- Patient reporting of sexual adverse events on an online platform for medication experiences.British journal of clinical 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHealthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients have various motives to report adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to their national agency. These motives may differ between countries.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess to what extent motives of HCPs and patients to report ADRs differ between countries.
methodsHCPs and patients from Croatia (HR), The Netherlands (NL), and the UK were asked to complete a web-based survey containing questions regarding demographics and ADR reporting. HCPs and patients could select all motives for reporting that applied to them, with a total of 23 and 24 motives, respectively. Descriptive statistics are presented and Chi-square tests were used to test for differences across the countries, with effect sizes calculated using Cramer's V.
resultsIn total, 296 HCPs and 423 patients were included (60% and 32% from Croatia, 19% and 44% from NL, and 21% and 24% from the UK, respectively). For most of the motives to report or not to report an ADR, there were no differences between countries. Most HCPs from all countries would be motivated to report an ADR if there was a strong suspicion of causality (89%), if it concerned a severe/serious ADR (86%), and if it concerned an ADR for a new, recently marketed drug (77%). Most patients from all countries agreed that they would report an ADR if it concerned a severe ADR (96%), if the ADR influenced their daily activities (91%), and if they were worried about their own situation (90%). Differences across the countries (p < 0.05 and V ≥ 0.21) were observed for three and four of the HCP and patient motives, respectively. For HCPs, these differences were seen in motives related to legal obligation (65% HR, 24% NL, 38% UK), black triangle medicines (27% HR, 4% NL, 77% UK), and the reporting of well-known ADRs (53% HR, 85% NL, 69% UK). For patients, these differences were seen in motives related to a linkage between the ADR report and the medical notes (59% HR, 60% NL, 30% UK), complexity and time taken to report (25% HR, 13% NL, 40% UK), medicines purchased on the internet (59% HR, 39% NL, 65% UK), and the reporting of embarrassing ADRs (32% HR, 11% NL, 35% UK).
conclusionsHCPs' and patients' motives to report or not to report ADRs to the national agency were mostly similar across the three countries. Such motives can be used in general strategies to promote and increase ADR reporting. The observed differences provide guidance to further fine-tune ADR reporting at a national level.
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.