SynthesisBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2026
Empowering citizens to spontaneously report suspected adverse drug reaction: Systematic literature review of interventions and their impact.
Synthesis in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Empowering citizens to spontaneously report suspected adverse drug reaction: Systematic literature review of interventions and their impact.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This systematic literature review aimed to identify and characterize existing interventions designed to empower citizens to spontaneously report adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and to determine which interventions have been shown to be the most effective internationally. The research question was structured using the PICO framework. Searches were conducted in three databases, following PRISMA guidelines, with protocol registered in PROSPERO(2025CRD42025645431). From 3.843 studies initially identified, 15 met the inclusion criteria and were analysed. These studies described and evaluated interventions implemented to empower citizens to report ADRs spontaneously. Most interventions (digital tools, media campaigns, interviews, educational materials, telephone-based interventions, pharmacist- and physician-led education) targeted the general public(n = 7)-including patients, parents, teachers and citizens-while others involved users supported by pharmacists(n = 5) or by physicians(n = 3). Approximately 80%(n = 12) of the studies reported an increase in ADR notifications following the intervention, and three studies demonstrated improvements in participants' knowledge, attitudes and perceptions regarding pharmacovigilance. Interventions led by pharmacists and physicians that offered practical education to citizens were particularly effective, emphasizing the central role of education in promoting active participation in drug safety monitoring. However, heterogeneity in study design, outcome measures and evaluation metrics limited direct comparison of effectiveness across studies. Overall, this review shows that professional-led, multi-component interventions are the most consistently effective for empowering citizens to report ADRs, whereas digital and awareness-based strategies yield more variable results, highlighting the importance of structured education to support active pharmacovigilance and inform practice and policy. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review focused exclusively on empowering the public.
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.