Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Attitudes and knowledge of community pharmacy professionals regarding the spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions: a preliminary study in Coimbra, Portugal

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Drugs & Therapy Perspectives Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) remains one of the most efficient methods to detect new, unusual, and severe ADRs. Community pharmacy professionals (CPPs) play a fundamental role in the reporting of spontaneous ADRs. The aim of this study was to describe the attitudes and knowledge of different CPP groups regarding the spontaneous reporting of ADRs and to identify the factors that can influence ADR under-reporting.

Methods

A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted in CPPs (156 pharmacists and 40 pharmacy technicians) working in 49 pharmacies in Coimbra, Portugal. A survey of the knowledge and attitudes of CPPs towards reporting ADRs and the factors that encourage and discourage ADR reporting was constructed and personally delivered to the pharmacies.

Results

The response rate was 82.0%. The seriousness and the unusualness of the reaction were the most important motives to report ADRs (98.0 and 97.4% of respondents, respectively). CPPs also considered ADR reporting to be a professional obligation (96.4%), but “don’t feel the need to report well-known ADRs” (54.1%). Other attitudes associated with under-reporting were lack of time (50.0%), method of reporting (38.3%), and fear of legal liability (29.6%).

Conclusions

CPPs’ knowledge and behavior play a significant role in ADR reporting. Despite the differences in their educational syllabus, there were no statistical differences between pharmacists and pharmacy technicians with regard to their perception of the importance of ADR reports or the factors that affect their reporting. It may be possible to reduce the under-reporting of ADRs by introducing educational interventions based on the attitudes related to under-reporting that have been identified in this study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA. 1998;279(15):1200–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. BMJ. 2004;329(7456):15–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A, Polónia J, et al. Influence of pharmacists’ attitudes on adverse drug reaction reporting. Drug Saf. 2006;29(4):331–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wester K, Jönsson A, Spigset O, et al. Spontaneously reported fatal suspected adverse drug reactions: a 10-year survey from Sweden. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16(2):173–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dormann H, Muth-Selbach U, Krebs S, et al. Incidence and costs of adverse drug reactions during hospitalisation. Drug Saf. 2000;22(2):161–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. van Hunsel F, Härmark L, Pal S, et al. Experiences with adverse drug reaction reporting by patients. Drug Saf. 2012;35(1):45–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. World Health Organization. The importance of pharmacovigilance: safety monitoring of medicinal products. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002. p. 1–48.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Härmark L, Van Grootheest AC. Pharmacovigilance: methods, recent developments and future perspectives. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;64(8):743–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hazell L, Cornelius V, Hannaford P, et al. How do patients contribute to signal detection? Drug Saf. 2013;36(3):199–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pal SN, Duncombe C, Falzon D, et al. WHO strategy for collecting safety data in public health programmes: complementing spontaneous reporting systems. Drug Saf. 2013;36(2):75–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Lopez-Gonzalez E, Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A. Determinants of under-reporting of adverse drug reactions. Drug Saf. 2009;32(1):19–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hazell L, Shakir SAW. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions. Drug Saf. 2006;29(5):385–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Van Grootheest AC, De Jong-van den Berg LTW. The role of hospital and community pharmacists in pharmacovigilance. Res Soc Admin Pharm. 2005;1(1):126–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mes K, Berg LTW, Grootheest AC. Attitudes of community pharmacists in the Netherlands towards adverse drug reaction reporting. Int J Pharm Pract. 2002;10(4):267–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients. JAMA. 1998;279(15):1200–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. van Grootheest K, Olsson S, Couper M, et al. Pharmacists’ role in reporting adverse drug reactions in an international perspective. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2004;13(7):457–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Van Grootheest AC, Van Puijenbroek EP, de Jong-van den LTW. Contribution of pharmacists to the reporting of adverse drug reactions. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2002;11(3):205–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Urru SAM, Pasina L, Minghetti P, et al. Role of community pharmacists in the detection of potentially inappropriate benzodiazepines prescriptions for insomnia. Int J Clin Pharm. 2015;37(6):1004–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Leone R, Moretti U, D’Incau P, et al. Effect of pharmacist involvement on patient reporting of adverse drug reactions: first Italian study. Drug Saf. 2013;36(4):267–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bateman DN, Sanders GL, Rawlins MD. Attitudes to adverse drug reaction reporting in the Northern Region. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1992;34(5):421.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Belton KJ, Lewis SC, Payne S, et al. Attitudinal survey of adverse drug reaction reporting by medical practitioners in the United Kingdom. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1995;39(3):223.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A, Polonia J, et al. Physicians’ attitudes and adverse drug reaction reporting: a case-control study in Portugal. Drug Saf. 2005;28(9):825–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Inman WH. Attitudes to adverse drug reaction reporting. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1996;41(5):434.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sweis D, Wong ICK. A survey on factors that could affect adverse drug reaction reporting according to hospital pharmacists in Great Britain. Drug Saf. 2000;23(2):165–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Irujo M, Beitia G, Bes-Rastrollo M, et al. Factors that influence under-reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions among community pharmacists in a Spanish region. Drug Saf. 2007;30(11):1073–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Toklu HZ, Uysal MK. The knowledge and attitude of the Turkish community pharmacists toward pharmacovigilance in the Kadikoy district of Istanbul. Pharm World Sci. 2008;30(5):556–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Belton KJ. Attitude survey of adverse drug-reaction reporting by health care professionals across the European Union. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1997;52(6):423–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Figueiras A, Tato F, Fontaiñas J, et al. Physicians’ attitudes towards voluntary reporting of adverse drug events. J Eval Clin Pract. 2001;7(4):347–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Herdeiro MT, Polonia J, Gestal-Otero JJ, et al. Improving the reporting of adverse drug reactions: a cluster-randomized trial among pharmacists in Portugal. Drug Saf. 2008;31(4):335–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Duarte M, Ferreira P, Soares M, et al. Community pharmacists’ attitudes towards adverse drug reaction reporting and their knowledge of the new pharmacovigilance legislation in the southern region of Portugal: a mixed methods study. Drugs Ther Perspect. 2015;31(9):316–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Toklu HZ, Soyalan M, Gültekin O, et al. The knowledge and attitude of the healthcare professionals towards pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction reporting in Northern Cyprus. J Pharmacovigil. 2016;4:193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sencan N, Altinkaynak M, Ferah I, et al. The knowledge and attitudes of physicians and nurses towards adverse event reporting and the effect of pharmacovigilance training: a hospital experience. Hacettepe Univ J Fac Pharm. 2010;30(1):25–40.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Granas AG, Buajordet M, Stenberg-Nilsen H, et al. Pharmacists’ attitudes towards the reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions in Norway. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16(4):429–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Figueiras A, Herdeiro MT, Polónia J, et al. An educational intervention to improve physician reporting of adverse drug reactions: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2006;296(9):1086–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Marques J, Ribeiro-Vaz I, Pereira AC, et al. A survey of spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions in 10 years of activity in a pharmacovigilance centre in Portugal. Int J Pharm Pract. 2014;22(4):275–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Batel-Marques F, Mendes D, Alves C, et al. Pharmacovigilance in Portugal: regional center unit activity [in Portuguese]. Acta Med Port. 2015;28(2):222–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lundin T. Postive trends for VigiBase: 12 million reports & counting. Uppsala Rep. 2016;72:14–5.

    Google Scholar 

  38. INFARMED. National Pharmacovigilance System (SNF): notifications and RAM cases in 2015 [in Portuguese]. Lisbon: INFARMED; 2016.

  39. Gokcekus L, Toklu HZ, Demirdamar R, et al. Dispensing practice in the community pharmacies in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Int J Clin Pharm. 2012;34(2):312–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Toklu HZ. The pharmacy practice of community pharmacists in Turkey. Marmara Pharm J. 2010;14:53–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Johnston R, Saulnier L, Gould O. Best possible medication history in the emergency department: comparing pharmacy technicians and pharmacists. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2010;63(5):359.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Driesenaar JA, De Smet P, van Hulten R, et al. Beliefs about inhaled corticosteroids: comparison of community pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and patients with asthma. J Asthma. 2016;53(10):1051–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The manuscript has been read and approved by all authors and all authors agreed to the submission of the manuscript to the Journal. The authors would like to thank Clara Rocha, Ph.D. at the Coimbra Health School for her contribution to the data analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto Politécnico de Coimbra, ESTESC-Coimbra Health School, Farmácia, Rua 5 de Outubro, 3046-854, Coimbra, Portugal

    Cristiano Matos, João Joaquim & Timóteo Pires

  2. Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Seville, Seville, Spain

    Cristiano Matos

  3. Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain

    João Joaquim

Authors
  1. Cristiano Matos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. João Joaquim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Timóteo Pires
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristiano Matos.

Ethics declarations

Source of funding

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this manuscript.

Conflict of interest

Cristiano Matos, João Joaquim, and Timóteo Pires have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Matos, C., Joaquim, J. & Pires, T. Attitudes and knowledge of community pharmacy professionals regarding the spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions: a preliminary study in Coimbra, Portugal. Drugs Ther Perspect 33, 88–94 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40267-016-0355-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40267-016-0355-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation