ArticleDigital health
First results from the lessons learnt from the deployment of the Med Safety App for reporting adverse drug reactions in Ghana.
Article in Digital health. 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.
- Subnational introduction of the RTS,S/AS01Malaria journal · 2025Article
- Consumer views on the use of digital tools for reporting adverse drug reactions: a cross-sectional study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Barriers and strategies to improve vaccine adverse events reporting: views from health workers and managers in Northern Ghana.BMJ public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The use of mobile phone technology for reporting adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in pharmacovigilance is relatively new.The objective of the study was to explore challenges and facilitators for the use of the Med Safety App for reporting ADRs in Ghana. A comparative evaluation of ADR reports received through the app and the standard paper-based form was also conducted. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study with a purposive sampling technique. The study population was persons who had downloaded the Med Safety App launched in Ghana 18 months before the study. Results: Of the 350 participants, 121 provided answers to the questionnaire sent as a Google form, representing a response rate of 34.6%.Ninety-five (78.5%) of the participants were healthcare professionals, and the remaining were patients. Seventy-five (64.7%) of the participants were using the app after initial installation because they thought it had helpful features. However, only 33 (27.3%) participants used the app to report ADRs, and of these, seven (21.2%) participants indicated that they would continue to use the app because it was easier than the other means of reporting ADRs. Most of the respondents, 109 (94%), indicated that they would recommend the app to someone else. There were some differences between the reports received through the app and between the paper-based Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) 1 form and the app, which warrant further exploration. Conclusion: Most participants indicated that the app is a useful tool and easy to use, and they were satisfied with the features of the app. Given that only just under one-third of participants had used the app to report ADRs, more time and training may be required to fully evaluate the feasibility of the use of the app going forward. The findings will help improve introduction of the app in other countries.
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.