Dataset Information

Factors Influencing the Use of a Mobile App for Reporting Adverse Drug Reactions and Receiving Safety Information: A Qualitative Study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

A mobile app may increase the reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and improve the communication of new drug safety information. Factors that influence the use of an app for such two-way risk communication need to be considered at the development stage.

Objective

Our aim was to reveal the factors that may influence healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients to use an app for two-way risk communication.

Methods

Focus group discussions and face-to-face interviews were conducted in the Netherlands, Spain and the UK. Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, patients with a rare disease or their caregivers and adolescents with health conditions were eligible to participate. HCPs included pharmacists, paediatricians, general practitioners, internists, practice nurses and professionals caring for patients with a rare disease. Patients and HCPs were recruited through various channels. The recorded discussions and interviews were transcribed verbatim. The dataset was analysed using thematic analysis and arranged according to the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology.

Results

Seven focus group discussions and 13 interviews were conducted. In total, 21 HCPs and 50 patients participated. Identified factors that may influence the use of the app were the type of feedback given on reported ADRs, how ADR reports are stored and the type of drug news. Also mentioned were other functions of the app, ease of use, type of language, the source of safety information provided through the app, security of the app, layout, the operating systems on which the app can be used and the costs.

Conclusions

Further research is needed to assess associations between user characteristics and the direction (positive or negative) of the factors potentially influencing app use.

SUBMITTER: de Vries ST

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5384960 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPharmacovigilance based on spontaneously reported suspected adverse events (AEs) from veterinary professionals is a powerful tool for detecting potential risks of using medicinal products. However, it is heavily dependent on the voluntary participation of veterinary professionals. Estimates suggest that over 90% of suspected AEs remain unreported. This survey was conducted to accumulate information on current practices and attitudes of Swedish veterinary professionals in relation to AE reporting and their perceptions of the accessibility of updated product safety information.MethodsSwedish veterinary professionals were surveyed using a web-based questionnaire prepared by the Swedish Medical Products Agency (SMPA). The survey included three sections with 13 questions and was distributed via several communication channels, including the Swedish Veterinary Association.ResultsThe survey was answered by 412 veterinary professionals, including veterinarians and licensed veterinary nurses. The survey identified that most veterinarians comply with national legislation by reporting directly to the SMPA, but not all observed AEs are reported. Veterinary professionals indicated that it is important to have an easy and efficient reporting system, preferably directly from an electronic medical records system. Feedback is considered important. Veterinary nursing staff could potentially improve the reporting rate of suspected AEs in Sweden. The degree of knowledge relating to the reporting of AEs varies among professionals, thus impacting on reporting frequency. A single source of product safety information is mainly used, and improvements are required to enhance accessibility and distribution of updated product safety information.ConclusionsThe insight gained from this survey will be used to influence attitudes and facilitate adaptations needed to fulfil the requirements of the European Union regulations. To reduce underreporting of AEs and facilitate access to updated product safety information, various approaches are required including educational interventions, new digital reporting tools and adaption of communication strategies.

Project description:Introduction and objectiveEuropean Union legislation has mandated the submission of European Economic Area non-serious reports to the EudraVigilance database since November 2017. As spontaneous reports of suspected adverse reactions to medicines represent a key source of safety signals, the European Medicines Agency has undertaken this work to assess the effects of this requirement on the characteristics of the reports submitted to EudraVigilance and on the detection of adverse drug reactions through routine analyses of the database.MethodsChanges in the numbers of serious and non-serious reports transmitted to EudraVigilance were examined over the period during which the legislation was implemented. The numbers and nature of potential safety signals emerging from established statistical algorithms used at the European Medicines Agency applied either to only the serious reports or to all reports in EudraVigilance were compared.ResultsUp to November 2017, less than 25% of European Economic Area reports in EudraVigilance were classified as non-serious, since than this figure was slightly above 60%. This change accompanied an increase in the total number of reports received. Addition of non-serious reports to the signal detection process resulted in a small overall increase in signals of disproportionate reporting with some new signals of disproportionate reporting appearing and some existing signals of disproportionate reporting disappearing; the sensitivity of the signal detection system was slightly increased and the proportion of signals of disproportionate reporting that corresponded to known adverse drug reactions (a measure of efficiency) was unchanged.ConclusionsThe change in legislation has led to a small increase in sensitivity, without affecting the efficiency of the routine statistical measures used. The number of non-serious reports as a proportion of reports in EudraVigilance is likely to increase over time and further monitoring of the impact on signal detection is required. Further work is also required on the qualitative impact of non-serious reports on the nature of signals detected and on their evaluation.

Project description:AIMS:To develop a systematic generic method of enabling patients to report symptoms which they believe to be due to a particular prescribed drug. METHODS:A piloted body system-based questionnaire was distributed to patients registered with 79 medical practices in Grampian prescribed one of nine recently marketed 'black triangle' drugs. These comprised four antidepressants, three antiepileptics and two analgesics. This requested respondents to identify any symptoms experienced over the previous year which they thought could be due to the 'black triangle' drug they had used. A sample of medical records was examined to compare symptoms recorded with those reported by patients. A classification system was developed for the study to enable the assessment of symptoms reported for their potential relationship to patients' drug therapy. All symptoms reported were classified, taking into account information provided by patients on their concomitant drugs and diseases. A specialist pharmacist independently re-classified a sample of the symptoms to validate the process. RESULTS:A 36.3% response rate was obtained (837/2307) with 742 respondents (88.6%) reporting at least one symptom. The median per patient was 6.0 (range 0--71), with almost half (406, 48.5%) reporting fewer than five symptoms. Most symptoms (71.0%) were classified as being probably or possibly related to the drugs studied. Agreement between researcher and specialist on the classification of 75.3% of 716 symptoms was obtained (Kappa=0.563). Responses from patients prescribed antidepressant drugs were more likely to include symptoms potentially caused by these drugs (74.5% of all symptoms reported) than those from patients prescribed analgesics (67.4%) or antiepileptics (65.1%, chi2 = 23.858, d.f. = 2, P < 0.001). Patients reporting large numbers of symptoms were more likely to report some which were classed as unlikely to be an ADR or unattributable (chi2 = 80.587, d.f. = 3, P < 0.001). Of the 742 reporting symptoms in questionnaires, 402 (54.2%) claimed to have reported some or all of these to their doctor. Only 162 (22.6%) of 716 patient-reported symptoms were documented in the primary care medical records of 103 patients prescribed tramadol or venlafaxine. CONCLUSIONS:Respondents were clearly willing to report symptoms, the majority of which were classed as possibly/probably related to the drugs studied. The results suggest that patients do not report all symptoms they suspect to be ADRs to their GP and that GPs do not record all symptoms which may be reported to them. The method could help to identify problems which patients perceive as being related to their drug therapy and contribute to increased ADR reporting.

Project description:BackgroundAttitudes of healthcare professionals regarding spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in Japan are not well known, and Japan's unique system of surveillance, called early post-marketing phase vigilance (EPPV), may affect these reporting attitudes. Our objectives were to describe potential effects of EPPV and to test whether ADR seriousness, prominence, and frequency are related to changes in reporting over time.MethodsA manufacturer's database of spontaneous ADR reports was used to extract data from individual case safety reports for 5 drugs subject to EPPV. The trend of reporting and the time lag between ADR onset and reporting to the manufacturer were examined. The following indices for ADRs occurring with each drug were calculated and analyzed to assess reporting trends: Serious:Non-serious ratio, High prominence:Low prominence ratio, and High frequency:Low frequency ratio.ResultsFor all 5 drugs, the time lag between ADR onset and reporting to the manufacturer was shorter in the EPPV period than in the post-EPPV period. All drugs showed higher Serious:Non-serious ratios in the post-EPPV period. No specific patterns were observed for the High prominence:Low prominence ratio. The High frequency:Low frequency ratio for peginterferon alpha-2a and sevelamer hydrochloride decreased steadily throughout the study period.ConclusionsHealthcare professionals may be more likely to report serious ADRs than to report non-serious ADRs, but the effect of event prominence on reporting trends is still unclear. Factors associated with ADR reporting attitude in Japan might be different from those in other countries because of EPPV and the involvement of medical representatives in the spontaneous reporting process. Pharmacovigilance specialists should therefore be cautious when comparing data between different time periods or different countries. Further studies are needed to elucidate the underlying mechanism of spontaneous ADR reporting in Japan.

Project description:BackgroundSpontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is an important method for pharmacovigilance, but under-reporting and poor quality of reports are major limitations. The aim of this study was to evaluate if repeated one-page ADR information letters affect (i) the reporting rate of ADRs and (ii) the quality of the ADR reports.MethodsAll 151 primary healthcare units in the Region Västra Götaland, Sweden, were randomly allocated (1:1) to an intervention (n = 77) or a control group (n = 74). The intervention consisted of one-page ADR information letters administered at three occasions during 2008 to all physicians and nurses in the intervention units. The number of ADR reports received from the 151 units was registered, as was the quality of the reports, which was defined as high if the ADR was to be reported according to Swedish regulations, that is, if the ADR was (i) serious, (ii) unexpected, and/or (iii) related to the use of new drugs and not labelled as common in the Summary of Product Characteristics. A questionnaire was administered to evaluate if the ADR information letter had reached the intended recipient.ResultsBefore the intervention, no significant differences in reporting rate or number of high quality reports could be detected between the randomization groups. In 2008, 79 reports were sent from 37 intervention units and 52 reports from 30 control units (mean number of reports per unit ± standard deviation: 1.0 ± 2.5 vs. 0.7 ± 1.2, P = 0.34). The number of high quality reports was higher in intervention units than in control units (37 vs. 15 reports, 0.5 ± 0.9 vs. 0.2 ± 0.6, P = 0.048). According to the returned questionnaires (n = 1,292, response rate 57%), more persons in the intervention than in the control group had received (29% vs. 19%, P < 0.0001) and read (31% vs. 26%, P < 0.0001) an ADR information letter.ConclusionsThis study suggests that repeated ADR information letters to physicians and nurses do not increase the ADR reporting rate, but may increase the number of high quality reports.

Project description:BackgroundSpontaneous reports of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) form an essential component of both drug safety monitoring and patient safety initiatives. Pharmacists are well positioned to report ADRs, but many barriers exist to their doing so. Over the past decade, substantial changes have occurred with regard to drug regulations and medication safety initiatives, and it is possible that knowledge-based interventions may be needed to enhance ADR reporting by pharmacists.ObjectiveTo determine whether ADR reporting behaviours of pharmacists improved after release of a revised policy on the reporting of medication incidents.MethodsA telephone survey was administered to pharmacists practising in the Canadian Forces Health Services Group. Self-reported behaviours and perceived barriers related to ADR reporting were compared before and 3 months after the updated policy was released. Accuracy in participants' self-assessed ADR reporting was evaluated using independently derived workload statistics.ResultsDuring the second survey phase (after release of the revised policy), a greater proportion of respondents reported awareness of institutional policies on ADR reporting and declared that they were able to complete all necessary ADR reports during their assigned work hours. However, the number of ADR reports submitted did not increase. Participants' recall of their ADR reporting behaviour was corroborated by workload data. During the second survey phase, there was a noticeable reduction in the number of free-form comments mentioning lack of staff as a barrier to ADR reporting.ConclusionsRelease of a more comprehensive policy was not associated with an increase in the number of ADR reports generated by pharmacists in the study setting. Interventions to strengthen the organization's work processes for detection of ADRs and submission of individual ADR reports should be strongly considered, to reinforce and enhance existing ADR reporting behaviours among pharmacists.

Project description:BackgroundAdverse drug reactions (ADRs) are unintended consequences of medication use and may result in hospitalizations or deaths. Timely reporting of ADRs to regulators is essential for drug monitoring, research, and maintaining patient safety, but it has not been standardized in Australia.ObjectiveWe sought to explore the ways that ADRs are monitored or reported in Australia. We reviewed how consumers and health care professionals participate in ADR monitoring and reporting.MethodsThe Arksey and O'Malley framework provided a methodology to sort the data according to key themes and issues. Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, and Computer & Applied Sciences Complete databases were used to extract articles published from 2010 to 2021. Two reviewers screened the papers for eligibility, extracted key data, and provided descriptive analysis of the data.ResultsSeven articles met the inclusion criteria. The Adverse Medicine Events Line (telephone reporting service) was introduced in 2003 to support consumer reporting of ADRs; however, only 10.4% of consumers were aware of ADR reporting schemes. Consumers who experience side effects were more likely to report ADRs to their doctors or pharmacists than to the drug manufacturer. The documentation of ADR reports in hospital electronic health records showed that nurses and pharmacists were significantly less likely than doctors to omit the description of the drug reaction, and pharmacists were significantly more likely to enter the correct classification of the drug reaction than doctors. Review and analysis of all ADR reports submitted to the Therapeutic Goods Administration highlighted a decline in physician contribution from 28% of ADR reporting in 2003 to 4% in 2016; however, within this same time period, hospital and community pharmacists were a major source of ADR reporting (ie, 16%). In 2014, there was an increase in ADR reporting by community pharmacists following the introduction of the GuildLink ADR web-based reporting system; however, a year later, the reporting levels dropped. In 2018, the Therapeutic Goods Administration introduced a black triangle scheme on the packaging of newly approved medicines, to remind and encourage ADR reporting on new medicines, but this was only marginally successful at increasing the quantity of ADR reports.ConclusionsDespite the existence of national and international guidelines for ADR reporting and management, there is substantial interinstitutional variability in the standards of ADR reporting among individual health care facilities. There is room for increased ADR reporting rates among consumers and health care professionals. A thorough assessment of the barriers and enablers to ADR reporting at the primary health care institutional levels is essential. Interventions to increase ADR reporting, for example, the black triangle scheme (alert or awareness) or GuildLink (digital health), have only had marginal effects and may benefit from further improvement revisions and awareness programs.