Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reporting of adverse drug reactions may be influenced by feedback to the reporting doctor

  • Pharmacoepidemiology and Prescription
  • Published:
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this study was to investigate two different feedback alternatives to doctors reporting adverse drug reactions (ADRs) concerning (1) effects on reporting rates and (2) doctors’ opinions.

Methods

When reporting an ADR during January through March 2006, doctors in the western part of Sweden were randomised according to working address to receive feedback I or feedback II. Feedback I consisted of the conventional mode of feedback. Feedback II consisted of the contents of feedback I supplemented with information on the reported drug from the regional drug information centre. A questionnaire was administered 2 weeks after the feedback. The doctors were asked to give their opinion on the feedback concerning amount of information, quality and overall impression on a 6-point scale, where 1 corresponded to too little/very bad and 6 to too much/very good. During the inclusion period and the 6-month follow-up period, additional ADR reports originating from receivers of either feedback I or II were identified and compared.

Results

Sixty-six doctors received feedback I, and 49 received feedback II. The number of doctors reporting more than once was greater in the group receiving feedback II (39% vs. 22%; P = 0.039). Feedback II was judged to contain more information than feedback I (4.1 ± 0.8 vs. 3.6 ± 0.9; P = 0.014). No difference between the feedback alternatives concerning doctors’ opinions on quality and overall impression could be detected. Sixty-five doctors (70%) stated that the content of the feedback letter could affect their willingness to report ADRs.

Conclusion

The content of the feedback to doctors reporting ADRs may influence reporting rates.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mjörndal T, Boman MD, Hägg S, Backstrom M, Wiholm BE, Wahlin A, Dahlqvist R (2002) Adverse drug reactions as a cause for admissions to a department of internal medicine. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 11:65–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schneeweiss S, Hasford J, Gottler M, Hoffmann A, Riethling AK, Avorn J (2002) Admissions caused by adverse drug events to internal medicine and emergency departments in hospitals: a longitudinal population-based study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 58:285–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. van den Bemt PM, Egberts AC, Lenderink AW, Verzijl JM, Simons KA, van der Pol WS, Leufkens HG (1999) Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. A comparison of doctors, nurses and patients as sources of reports. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 55:155–158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Medical Products Agency’s Code of Statutes. LVFS 2006:4

  5. Alvarez-Requejo A, Carvajal A, Begaud B, Moride Y, Vega T, Arias LH (1998) Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions. Estimate based on a spontaneous reporting scheme and a sentinel system. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 54:483–488

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bäckström M, Mjörndal T, Dahlqvist R (2004) Under-reporting of serious adverse drug reactions in Sweden. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 13:483–487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Belton KJ (1997) Attitude survey of adverse drug-reaction reporting by health care professionals across the European Union. The European pharmacovigilance research group. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 52:423–427

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A, Polonia J, Gestal-Otero JJ (2005) Physicians’ attitudes and adverse drug reaction reporting : a case-control study in Portugal. Drug Saf 28:825–833

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. MICROMEDEX Healthcare Series, Thomson MICROMEDEX, Greenwood Village, Colorado. www.micromedex.com

  10. Meyler’s Side Effects of Drugs (2000) Dukes MNG, Aronson JK (eds) 14th edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam

  11. Goodman & Gilman´s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (2006) Brunton LL (ed) 11th edn. The McGraw-Hill Companies, USA

  12. Harrison’s online. Harrison’s principles of internal medicine. Kasper DL, Braunwald E, Fauci AS, Hauser SL, Longo DL, Jameson JL, Isselbacher KJ (eds) 16th edn. McGraw-Hill

  13. McGettigan P, Golden J, Conroy RM, Arthur N, Feely J (1997) Reporting of adverse drug reactions by hospital doctors and the response to intervention. Br J Clin Pharmacol 44:98–100

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Figueiras A, Herdeiro MT, Polonia J, Gestal-Otero JJ (2006) An educational intervention to improve physician reporting of adverse drug reactions: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. JAMA 296:1086–1093

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Castel JM, Figueras A, Pedros C, Laporte JR, Capella D (2003) Stimulating adverse drug reaction reporting: effect of a drug safety bulletin and of including yellow cards in prescription pads. Drug Saf 26:1049–1055

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bäckström M, Mjörndal T (2006) A small economic inducement to stimulate increased reporting of adverse drug reactions-a way of dealing with an old problem? Eur J Clin Pharmacol 62:381–385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful to Staffan Svensson, Department of Clinical Pharmacology, for the randomisation procedure.

Conflict of interest statement

No conflicts of interests exist.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Regional Pharmacovigilance Centre, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, SE–413 45, Göteborg, Sweden

    Susanna M. Wallerstedt, Gertrud Brunlöf, Marie-Louise Johansson & Carina Tukukino

  2. Department of Oncology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, SE–413 45, Göteborg, Sweden

    Lars Ny

  3. Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital/Sahlgrenska, SE–413 45, Göteborg, Sweden

    Susanna M. Wallerstedt

Authors
  1. Susanna M. Wallerstedt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gertrud Brunlöf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marie-Louise Johansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carina Tukukino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lars Ny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susanna M. Wallerstedt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wallerstedt, S.M., Brunlöf, G., Johansson, ML. et al. Reporting of adverse drug reactions may be influenced by feedback to the reporting doctor. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 63, 505–508 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-007-0270-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-007-0270-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation