Dataset Information

Effectiveness of the Med Safety mobile application in improving adverse drug reaction reporting by healthcare professionals in Uganda: a protocol for a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) has massively reduced HIV mortality. However, long-term cART increases the risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), which can lead to higher morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs for people living with HIV (PLHIV).Pharmacovigilance-monitoring the effects of medicines-is essential for understanding real-world drug safety. In Uganda, pharmacovigilance systems have only recently been developed, and rates of ADR reporting for cART are very low. Thus, the safety profile of medicines currently used to treat HIV and tuberculosis in our population is poorly understood.The Med Safety mobile application has been developed through the European Union's Innovative Medicines Initiative WEB-Recognising Adverse Drug Reactions project to promote digital pharmacovigilance. This mobile application has been approved for ADR-reporting by Uganda's National Drug Authority. However, the barriers and facilitators to Med Safety uptake, and its effectiveness in improving pharmacovigilance, are as yet unknown.

Methods and analysis

A pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial will be implemented over 30 months at 191 intervention and 191 comparison cART sites to evaluate Med Safety. Using a randomisation sequence generated by the sealed envelope software, we shall randomly assign the 382 prescreened cART sites to the intervention and comparison arms. Each cART site is a cluster that consists of healthcare professionals and PLHIV receiving dolutegravir-based cART and/or isoniazid preventive therapy. Healthcare professionals enrolled in the intervention arm will be trained in the use of mobile-based, paper-based and web-based reporting, while those in the comparison arm will be trained in paper-based and web-based reporting only.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval was given by the School of Biomedical Sciences Research and Ethics Committee at Makerere University (SBS-REC-720), and administrative clearance was obtained from Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (HS1366ES). Study results will be shared with healthcare professionals, policymakers, the public and academia.

Trial registration number

PACTR202009822379650.

SUBMITTER: Kiguba R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9252195 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:BackgroundLack of adequate detail compromises analysis of reported suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs). We investigated how comprehensively Ugandan healthcare professionals (HCPs) described their most recent previous-month suspected ADR, and determined the characteristics of HCPs who provided comprehensive ADR descriptions. We also identified rare, serious, and unanticipated suspected ADR descriptions with medication safety-alerting potential.MethodsDuring 2012/13, this survey was conducted in purposively selected Ugandan health facilities (public/private) including the national referral and six regional referral hospitals representative of all regions. District hospitals, health centres II to IV, and private health facilities in the catchment areas of the regional referral hospitals were conveniently selected. Healthcare professionals involved in prescribing, transcribing, dispensing, and administration of medications were approached and invited to self-complete a questionnaire on ADR reporting. Two-thirds of issued questionnaires (1,345/2,000) were returned.ResultsNinety per cent (241/268) of HCPs who suspected ADRs in the previous month provided information on five higher-level descriptors as follows: body site (206), drug class (203), route of administration (127), patient age (133), and ADR severity (128). Comprehensiveness (explicit provision of at least four higher-level descriptors) was achieved by at least two-fifths (46%, 124/268) of HCPs. Received descriptions were more likely to be comprehensive from HCPs in private health facilities, regions other than central, and those not involved in teaching medical students. Overall, 106 serious and 51 rare previous-month suspected ADRs were described. The commonest serious and rare ADR was Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS); mostly associated with oral nevirapine or cotrimoxazole, but haemoptysis after diclofenac analgesia and paralysis after quinine injection were also described.ConclusionSurveyed Ugandan HCPs who had suspected at least one ADR in the previous month competently provided comprehensive ADR descriptions: more, indeed, than are received per annum nationally. Properly analyzed, and with local feed-back, voluntary ADR reports by HCPs could be an essential alerting tool for identifying rare and serious suspected ADRs in Uganda.

Project description:BackgroundMedication errors (MEs) are largely under-reported, which undermines quality improvement and medication risk management in healthcare.ObjectivesTo assess attitudes of Ugandan healthcare professionals (HCPs) towards ME reporting, and identify characteristics of HCPs who endorsed integration of ME and adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting, valued patient involvement in ME reporting, disclosed having ever made potentially harmful MEs, or observed possibly harmful MEs committed by other HCPs.MethodsHealthcare professionals self-completed a questionnaire on their attitudes towards the occurrence and reporting of MEs in purposively selected Ugandan health facilities (public/private) including the national referral and six regional referral hospitals representative of all regions.ResultsResponse rate was 67 % (1345/2000). Most HCPs (91 %; 1174/1289) approved a national ME reporting system for Uganda and 58 % (734/1261) endorsed integration of ME and ADR reporting. Two-thirds (65 %; 819/1267) of HCPs valued patient involvement in ME reporting, one-fifth (18 %; 235/1310) disclosed that they had ever made potentially harmful MEs, while two-fifths (41 %; 542/1323) had ever identified possibly harmful MEs committed by other HCPs. Endorsing patient involvement in ME reporting was more likely by HCPs who valued root-cause analysis and reporting of both actual and potential MEs, or who conceded inadequate communication and lack of time. Self-disclosure of having ever committed potentially harmful MEs was more likely with the need for confidentiality, working in stressful conditions, and willingness to report ADRs. Identifying possibly harmful MEs committed by other HCPs was more likely by non-nurses and those who reported blame culture, stressful conditions, ever encountered a fatal ADR, or attachment to hospital-level health facility.ConclusionA non-punitive healthcare environment and patient involvement may promote ME disclosure and reporting in Uganda and possibly other African countries.