ArticleThe mental health clinician2022
Perceptions and barriers of adverse drug reaction reporting within inpatient state psychiatric facilities.
Article in The mental health clinician, 2022. 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.
- Bridging the Gap: Promoting Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting through Innovative Strategies in Zero-reporting Zones at Karaikal - An Educational Intervention Study at Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring Center.Journal of research in pharmacy practice · 2026Article
- Integrating a Pharmacovigilance and Response Unit Team for a Better Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting and Management: Insights from a Prospective Cross-Sectional Study.Turkish journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2025Article
- Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions Reporting: Healthcare Providers' Experiences from Southern Highland Tanzania.Advances in pharmacological and pharmaceutical sciences · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality for hospitalized patients. Health care organizations track ADRs to reduce patient mortality, reduce hospital readmissions, decrease costs, and improve patient care. Differing definitions of ADRs cause confusion among providers, leading to hesitation with ADR reporting. The objective of this study was to understand health care professionals' perspectives of ADR reporting within inpatient state psychiatric facilities. Methods: A survey was sent to 143 health care professionals throughout 25 inpatient state psychiatric facilities within 1 state. The survey assessed the definition of an ADR, confidence in reporting, barriers to reporting, the role of reporting, who should report and review ADRs, and strategies for process improvement. Results: The survey had a 75.5% response rate with 108 respondents. Most respondents could identify the definition of an ADR, were moderately confident in reporting ADRs, and understood the importance of ADR reporting. Barriers to ADR reporting included the reaction not being serious, a lack of information about the ADR, or not enough clarity on how to report an ADR. Fear of retaliation was an additional barrier to ADR reporting. Training and direction on ADR reporting, education on real versus perceived consequences, a designated point person to aid in reporting, and better access to reporting technology were suggested improvements for ADR reporting. Discussion: From this survey, it is evident that respondents believe improved education and training, improved communication regarding reporting consequences, and consensus on the definition of an ADR would encourage reporting.
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.