ReviewJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2026
Strengthening pharmacovigilance through patient reporting: a scoping review of awareness, barriers, and facilitators.
Review in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) significantly impact global healthcare systems, yet patient participation in pharmacovigilance remains underutilised. This scoping review synthesises evidence on patient awareness, barriers, and facilitators for ADR reporting to inform strategies for enhancing pharmacovigilance systems. Methods: Following the Arksey and O'Malley framework, we conducted a scoping review of studies published up to 2025 across PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts, extracted data, and synthesised findings using thematic and descriptive analyses. Results: A total of 1,420 articles were identified, of which 42 studies from 25 countries met the inclusion criteria. Most employed quantitative descriptive designs (n = 27), followed by mixed-methods (n = 7) and qualitative approaches (n = 5). Sample sizes ranged from 15 participants to over 500,000 ADR reports from national databases. Data collection methods included questionnaires, interviews, and electronic surveys, while six studies analysed secondary data from pharmacovigilance systems such as VigiBase and the Yellow Card Scheme. Key barriers included limited knowledge, complex reporting processes, and a lack of feedback, whereas facilitators included healthcare professional support and simplified, user-friendly platforms. Conclusions: Patient reporting is hindered by systemic and educational gaps, especially in LMICs. Strategic interventions, such as simplified reporting mechanisms, nationwide awareness campaigns, digital tool integration, and healthcare provider training, are critical to empower patients as active pharmacovigilance contributors. Future efforts must prioritise culturally tailored approaches and equitable access to reporting infrastructure.
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.