ArticleDrug safety2025
Views on the Development and Use of a New Digital Adverse Drug Event Reporting Platform in Australia: A Qualitative Study.
Article in Drug safety, 2025. 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.
- Consumers' experiences and perspectives on reporting adverse drug reactions using digital tools: a qualitative study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Completeness of spontaneously reported adverse drug reactions in 4 databases.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundReporting of adverse drug events (ADEs) to regulatory authorities remains low, particularly among consumers.
objectivesTo explore stakeholders' views on the development and use of a digital platform to improve ADE reporting by consumers to the regulatory authority in Australia, i.e., the Therapeutic Goods Administration.
methodsA qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs), and co-design workshops with consumers, healthcare professionals (HCPs), and regulators. The interview recordings were transcribed verbatim, coded, and analysed thematically according to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour model. Findings of the FGDs and co-design workshops were incorporated to enhance and complement the insights gathered from the interviews.
resultsA total of 39 participants took part in the study (54 % consumers, 41 % HCPs, and 5 % regulators). Uncovered themes related to ADE reporting in general were: difficulty recognizing ADEs and health literacy, awareness about reporting ADEs (Capability); visibility of ADE reporting, professionals' views on consumer ADE reporting, consumer education (Opportunity); the common good, benefit to the reporter, identifying ADEs worth reporting, and concern about reporting (Motivation). Additional identified themes specific to a new digital platform were: physical abilities (Capability); features that facilitate intuitive use, convenience and accessibility, user experience, integration with existing systems, trust, sharing experiences with others (Opportunity); and concern about using a reporting platform, and feedback loop (Motivation).
conclusionsA cross-section of attitudes and values were obtained regarding ADE reporting in general and a new ADE reporting digital platform for consumers in Australia, which will inform its development, implementation and evaluation.
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.