ArticleHealth science reports2024
Implementing Best Practices for Nurses in Detecting and Reporting Adverse Drug Reactions in a Tertiary Hospital in Tabriz, Iran: A Mixed-Method Study.
Article in Health science reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Barriers to Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Among Physicians, Nurses, and Pharmacists: A Scoping Review Comparing High-Income Versus Low-/Middle-Income Countries.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: According to the World Health Organization (WHO), an Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) is defined as "a response to a drug which is noxious and unintended, and which occurs at doses normally used in humans for the prophylaxis, diagnosis, or therapy of disease, or for the modification of physiological function." The aim of this research was to evaluate the current practice and implement the best practices for detecting and reporting ADR in a tertiary hospital in Tabriz, Iran. Methods: We used a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design in the current study. The research was conceptually informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute model of Evidence-Based Healthcare (JBI EBHC). A three-phase implementation process, outlined by this model, was used in this study. The first and third phases comprised the quantitaive phase of the study, in which we evaluated the current practice and conducted a final evaluation to measure changes in compliance with the best practice. The qualitative phase, the second phase of the JBI EBHC model, was conducted to identify barriers and develop implementation strategies. There were seven evidence-based audit criteria for evaluating the practice, with a sample size of 23 nurses for the quantitative phase and 10 participants for the qualitative phase. Results: The quantitative findings revealed an improvement in compliance rates for all criteria following the follow-up audit. From the qualitative analysis, four themes of barriers were identified: time and workload, lack of a proper reporting system for ADR, lack of belief and readiness for change among nurses, and lack of awareness about the importance of documenting ADR. Conclusion: The results of this implementation study demonstrated enhanced ADR reporting. It can be inferred that implementing educational strategies, such as holding conferences, informal meetings, workshops, and educational pamphlets, can facilitate the implementation of evidence into practice. Implications for Nurses: Findings will help nurses across sectors of primary, secondary, and tertiary care use the implemented strategies to improve the quality of care and reduce ADR.
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.