Search

Background: Healthcare professional's knowledge and attitudes to adverse drug reaction (ADR) and ADR reporting play vital role to report any cases of ADR. Positive attitudes may favour ADR reporting by healthcare professionals. This study was aimed to investigate the attitudes towards and ways to improve adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting among healthcare professionals working at four Regional Pharmacovigilance Centres (RPCs) of Nepal. Methods: A cross sectional study was done by survey using a self-administered structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to 450 healthcare professionals working at four RPCs. Results: The overall response rate was 74.0%. There were 74.8% of healthcare professionals who had seen patient experiencing an ADR; however, only 20.1% had reported. Reporting form not available (48.1%) and other colleagues not reporting ADR cases (46.9%) would significantly discourage the ADR reporting among healthcare professionals working at four RPCs. Healthcare professionals perceived that seriousness of the reaction (75.6%); unusual reaction (64.6%); reaction to new product (71.2%); new reaction to existing product (70.2%); and confidence in diagnosis of ADR (60.8%) were important factors on the decision to report ADR. Awareness among healthcare professionals (85.9%), training (76.0%), collaboration (67.0%), and involve pharmacist for ADR reporting (63.1%) were mostly recognized ways to improve reporting. Regular newsletter on current awareness in drug safety (71.2%), information on new ADR (65.8%), and international drug safety information (64.0%) were the identified feedbacks they would like to receive from the Nepal pharmacovigilance programme. Conclusion: Healthcare professionals working at four RPCs of Nepal have positive attitudes towards ADR reporting. Awareness among healthcare professionals, training and collaboration would likely improve reporting provided they would receive appropriate feedback from the national pharamcovigilance programme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the knowledge about ADRs and ADR reporting among healthcare professionals working at four regional pharmacovigilance centers (RPCs) of Nepal. METHODS: It was a cross sectional study, done by a survey using a validated self-administered structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to 450 healthcare professionals working at four RPCs. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 74%. Only 53% and 38% of respondents knew about the existence of National Pharmacovigilance Centre (NPC) and RPC, respectively. Among the respondents, 29% and 33% did not know what a Type A and Type B ADR was. Similarly, 30% and 45% were not aware of the common types of ADRs or the thalidomide tragedy. Only, 9% knew about Uppsala Monitoring Centre (UMC) and only 10% answered correctly about the Naranjo algorithm as a causality assessment tool for ADRs. Of the respondents, only 19% knew about spontaneous reporting system and only 18% were aware about its drawbacks. The overall mean score on knowledge about ADR among healthcare professionals was 7.64 ± 2.38 out of the maximum possible score of 12. Whereas, the overall mean score of knowledge about ADR reporting was 3.95 ± 1.78 out of maximum possible score of 11. CONCLUSION: Healthcare professionals working at four RPCs of Nepal have some knowledge about ADRs themselves but limited knowledge about ADR reporting. There is an urgent need of action to be taken by RPCs at the regional level and NPC at the national level to improve knowledge and ADR reporting by healthcare professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Healthcare professional's knowledge and attitudes to adverse drug reaction (ADR) and ADR reporting play vital role to report any cases of ADR. Positive attitudes may favour ADR reporting by healthcare professionals. This study was aimed to investigate the attitudes towards and ways to improve adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting among healthcare professionals working at four Regional Pharmacovigilance Centres (RPCs) of Nepal., Methods: A cross sectional study was done by survey using a self-administered structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to 450 healthcare professionals working at four RPCs., Results: The overall response rate was 74.0%. There were 74.8% of healthcare professionals who had seen patient experiencing an ADR; however, only 20.1% had reported. Reporting form not available (48.1%) and other colleagues not reporting ADR cases (46.9%) would significantly discourage the ADR reporting among healthcare professionals working at four RPCs. Healthcare professionals perceived that seriousness of the reaction (75.6%); unusual reaction (64.6%); reaction to new product (71.2%); new reaction to existing product (70.2%); and confidence in diagnosis of ADR (60.8%) were important factors on the decision to report ADR. Awareness among healthcare professionals (85.9%), training (76.0%), collaboration (67.0%), and involve pharmacist for ADR reporting (63.1%) were mostly recognized ways to improve reporting. Regular newsletter on current awareness in drug safety (71.2%), information on new ADR (65.8%), and international drug safety information (64.0%) were the identified feedbacks they would like to receive from the Nepal pharmacovigilance programme., Conclusion: Healthcare professionals working at four RPCs of Nepal have positive attitudes towards ADR reporting. Awareness among healthcare professionals, training and collaboration would likely improve reporting provided they would receive appropriate feedback from the national pharamcovigilance programme.

Objective: To investigate the knowledge about ADRs and ADR reporting among healthcare professionals working at four regional pharmacovigilance centers (RPCs) of Nepal., Methods: It was a cross sectional study, done by a survey using a validated self-administered structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to 450 healthcare professionals working at four RPCs., Results: The overall response rate was 74%. Only 53% and 38% of respondents knew about the existence of National Pharmacovigilance Centre (NPC) and RPC, respectively. Among the respondents, 29% and 33% did not know what a Type A and Type B ADR was. Similarly, 30% and 45% were not aware of the common types of ADRs or the thalidomide tragedy. Only, 9% knew about Uppsala Monitoring Centre (UMC) and only 10% answered correctly about the Naranjo algorithm as a causality assessment tool for ADRs. Of the respondents, only 19% knew about spontaneous reporting system and only 18% were aware about its drawbacks. The overall mean score on knowledge about ADR among healthcare professionals was 7.64 ± 2.38 out of the maximum possible score of 12. Whereas, the overall mean score of knowledge about ADR reporting was 3.95 ± 1.78 out of maximum possible score of 11., Conclusion: Healthcare professionals working at four RPCs of Nepal have some knowledge about ADRs themselves but limited knowledge about ADR reporting. There is an urgent need of action to be taken by RPCs at the regional level and NPC at the national level to improve knowledge and ADR reporting by healthcare professionals.