ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2026
Consumers' experiences and perspectives on reporting adverse drug reactions using digital tools: a qualitative study.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSpontaneous adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are underreported. Digital reporting systems are increasingly used to address this issue; however, limited knowledge exists about the barriers and facilitators influencing their use by consumers.
aimTo explore facilitators and barriers influencing consumers' use of digital tools for ADR reporting, and to identify the factors, expectations and preferences that affect their engagement with these tools.
methodAn exploratory qualitative descriptive study using semi-structured in-depth interviews was conducted among Australian adults who self-reported having experienced an ADR. Interviews were conducted face-to-face or via Zoom, audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed inductively using reflexive thematic analysis. Themes were mapped onto domains of the Combined Technology Acceptance Model and Theory of Planned Behaviour (C-TAM-TPB) framework.
resultsFourteen participants were interviewed. Consumers expressed positive intentions to use online ADR reporting tools. Identified facilitators included user-friendly and accessible tools that are simple to complete, the use of images to aid comprehension, integration with existing patient health records, the ability to submit reports to both healthcare professionals and regulators, and a tool designed specifically for consumers using layperson language. Identified barriers included lack of awareness that consumers could report ADRs using online tools, the need for registration, complex medical terminology, compulsory fields, and the absence of feedback after submission.
conclusionConsumers were willing to use online ADR reporting tools but were largely unaware of their existence. Enhancing usability through user-friendly design, and reporting forms specifically designed for consumers may increase engagement. Addressing barriers such as lack of awareness, registration requirements, medical jargon, and lack of feedback may improve usability and contribute to strengthening pharmacovigilance systems.
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.