Observational studyJournal of community health2023
Motivation and Knowledge of Portuguese Community Pharmacists Towards the Reporting of Suspected Adverse Reactions to Medicines: A Cross-Sectional Survey.
Observational study in Journal of community health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hospital Pharmacists' Perspectives on Documenting and Classifying Pharmaceutical Interventions: A Nationwide Validation Study in Portugal.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Empowering Pharmacists in Type 2 Diabetes Care: Opportunities for Prevention, Counseling, and Therapeutic Optimization.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Promoting pharmacovigilance through educational strategies: impact of a national training intervention on the knowledge and practice of healthcare providers in Jordan.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2025Article
- Outcomes of Community Pharmacy Interventions on Patients with Medicines Under Additional Monitoring.Integrated pharmacy research & practice · 2024Article
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
The close contact between patients and community pharmacists, along with the extensive geographical distribution of pharmacies in Portugal, offer exceptional conditions to detect and report adverse drug reactions (ADR). This study aimed to evaluate the motivation and knowledge of spontaneous reporting of ADR by community pharmacists of Porto, Portugal. Secondly, we aimed to generate real-world evidence on the main factors determining ADR report and at raising potential alternatives to the current reporting procedure in community pharmacy. We performed a descriptive, cross-sectional, observational, anonymous web survey-based study. Between April and July 2021, a web survey was implemented, targeting community pharmacists in the Porto district, Portugal. We validated 217 surveys from pharmacists. Regular notifiers seem to be more familiarised than non-regular notifiers with the Portuguese Pharmacovigilance System (PPS), with the Portal RAM for reporting suspected ADR, and with the update of the concept of ADR. Moreover, regular notifiers seem to be more proactive with their care in questioning patients about ADR and have more self-knowledge to identify suspected ADR. Conversely, non-regular notifiers, seem to be more reluctant to be judged by their ADR reporting activities. Respondents suggested to simplify and optimise the reporting process (31% of the suggestions), or to integrate a reporting platform into the pharmacy's software (27%). This study identified opportunities to promote the ADR reporting process by community pharmacists, namely receiving feedback from the PPS on the reported case and its regulatory implications, implementing training programs in pharmacovigilance, and creating solutions to simplify the reporting process.
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.