Dataset Information

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting in Ethiopia: Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: Adverse drug reactions are major global public health problems and an important cause of mortality. Problems related to medicines safety can emerge from real-life medication use due to increasing access to complex treatment of concomitant infectious and noncommunicable diseases, hence leading to a higher prevalence of drug-related problems. The objective of this review was to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice of adverse drug reaction reporting among health care professionals in Ethiopia. Relevant literatures were searched from Google Scholar, PubMed, Hinari, Web of Science, Scopus, and Science Direct using inclusion and exclusion criteria. From 133 searched studies, 13 studies were reviewed. The knowledge and attitude of health care professionals towards adverse drug reaction reporting ranged from 22.68% -60.33% and 47.22% -67.14%, with averages of 41.50% and 57.18%, respectively. While 46.93% encountered adverse drug reactions and 41.8% reported in the last 12 months. One-third (34.15%) of health care professionals do not know how to report adverse drug reactions. Fearing to report, uncertainty about the adverse drug reaction, concern about reporting generating extra work, thinking that one report does not make any difference, nonavailability of reporting forms, and lack of feedback from regulatory authority were the stated reasons for underreporting. We conclude that the knowledge, attitude, and practice of health care professionals towards spontaneous ADR reporting were low. Conducting awareness and educational training and implementation of electronic reporting can improve the ADR reporting practice.

SUBMITTER: Hailu AD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7439161 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting in Ethiopia: Systematic Review.

Hailu Abel Demerew AD Mohammed Solomon Ahmed SA

BioMed research international 20200810

Adverse drug reactions are major global public health problems and an important cause of mortality. Problems related to medicines safety can emerge from real-life medication use due to increasing access to complex treatment of concomitant infectious and noncommunicable diseases, hence leading to a higher prevalence of drug-related problems. The objective of this review was to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice of adverse drug reaction reporting among health care professionals in Ethiop ...[more]

PMID: 32851089

Similar Datasets

Project description:Medication-related problems (MRPs) are an important healthcare problem. This study aimed at reviewing the published literature in Ethiopia to estimate the prevalence of MRPs and to summarize associated factors. A comprehensive systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Google databases from inception to April 2020. Articles that addressed MRPs were eligible for inclusion. Article screening, data extraction, and study quality analysis were performed independently by two reviewers. Studies targeting specific disease condition were considered as specific, while the remaining were nonspecific. The prevalence of MRPs was then computed in medians and interquartile ranges (IQR), while associated factors were summarized in a table. Of the thirty-two studies included in this review, the majority of them (n = 24) targeted MRPs, while the remaining studies (n = 8) investigated adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Studies varied in the study design, study population, and definition of MRPs and ADRs used. The overall median prevalence was 70.8% (IQR = 61.0-80.2) with a range of 16.0% to 88.7%. The median prevalence of MRPs in specific and nonspecific patients was 71.2% (IQR = 60.7-71.2) and 69.3% (IQR = 60.7-82.0), respectively. In addition, a median of 36.6% (IQR = 10.0-85.7) of patients experienced ADRs. Indication-related and effectiveness-related MRPs were commonly reported in both specific and nonspecific patients, while noncompliance MRPs were more prevalent among specific patients than nonspecific patients. Increasing age, presence of co-morbidity, and an increasing number of drugs were the commonly identified contributing factors of MRPs. The review showed that more than two-thirds of the study participants developed MRPs. Hence, an integrated approach should be designed to improve the optimal use of pharmacotherapy to reduce the burden of MRPs. Further, future research should be undertaken to prepare cost-effective and efficient prevention mechanisms to reduce or halt the development of MRPs.

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the quality of reporting of harms in systematic reviews, and to determine the need for a reporting guideline specific for reviews of harms.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE).Review methodsDatabases were searched for systematic reviews having an adverse event as the main outcome, published from January 2008 to April 2011. Adverse events included an adverse reaction, harms, or complications associated with any healthcare intervention. Articles with a primary aim to investigate the complete safety profile of an intervention were also included. We developed a list of 37 items to measure the quality of reporting on harms in each review; data were collected as dichotomous outcomes ("yes" or "no" for each item).ResultsOf 4644 reviews identified, 309 were systematic reviews or meta-analyses primarily assessing harms (13 from CDSR; 296 from DARE). Despite a short time interval, the comparison between the years of 2008 and 2010-11 showed no difference on the quality of reporting over time (P=0.079). Titles in fewer than half the reviews (proportion of reviews 0.46 (95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.52)) did not mention any harm related terms. Almost one third of DARE reviews (0.26 (0.22 to 0.31)) did not clearly define the adverse events reviewed, nor did they specify the study designs selected for inclusion in their methods section. Almost half of reviews (n=170) did not consider patient risk factors or length of follow-up when reviewing harms of an intervention. Of 67 reviews of complications related to surgery or other procedures, only four (0.05 (0.01 to 0.14)) reported professional qualifications of the individuals involved. The overall, unweighted, proportion of reviews with good reporting was 0.56 (0.55 to 0.57); corresponding proportions were 0.55 (0.53 to 0.57) in 2008, 0.55 (0.54 to 0.57) in 2009, and 0.57 (0.55 to 0.58) in 2010-11.ConclusionSystematic reviews compound the poor reporting of harms data in primary studies by failing to report on harms or doing so inadequately. Improving reporting of adverse events in systematic reviews is an important step towards a balanced assessment of an intervention.

Project description:BackgroundSpontaneous adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting is the cornerstone of pharmacovigilance. ADR reporting with Yellow Cards has tremendously improved pharmacovigilance of drugs in many developed countries and its use is advocated by the World Health Organization (WHO). This study was aimed at investigating the knowledge and attitude of doctors in a teaching hospital in Lagos, Nigeria on spontaneous ADR reporting and to suggest possible ways of improving this method of reporting.MethodsA total of 120 doctors working at the Lagos State University Teaching Hospital (LASUTH), in Nigeria were evaluated with a questionnaire for their knowledge and attitudes to ADR reporting. The questionnaire sought the demographics of the doctors, their knowledge and attitudes to ADR reporting, the factors that they perceived may influence ADR reporting, and their levels of education and training on ADR reporting. Provision was also made for suggestions on the possible ways to improve ADR reporting.ResultsThe response rate was 82.5%. A majority of the respondents (89, 89.9%) considered doctors as the most qualified health professionals to report ADRs. Forty (40.4%) of the respondents knew about the existence of National Pharmacovigilance Centre (NPC) in Nigeria. Thirty-two (32.3%) respondents were aware of the Yellow Card reporting scheme but only two had ever reported ADRs to the NPC. About half (48.5%) of the respondents felt that all serious ADRs could be identified after drug marketing. There was a significant difference between the proportion of respondents who felt that ADR reporting should be either compulsory or voluntary (chi2 = 38.9, P < 0.001). ADR reporting was encouraged if the reaction was serious (77, 77.8%) and unusual (70, 70.7%). Education and training was the most recognised means of improving ADR reporting.ConclusionThe knowledge of ADRs and how to report them are inadequate among doctors working in a teaching hospital in Lagos, Nigeria. More awareness should be created on the Yellow Card reporting scheme. Continuous medical education, training and integration of ADR reporting into the clinical activities of the doctors would likely improve reporting.

Dataset Information

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting in Ethiopia: Systematic Review.

Publications

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting in Ethiopia: Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets