Skip to main content

The knowledge and attitude of the Turkish community pharmacists toward pharmacovigilance in the Kadikoy district of Istanbul

Pharmacy World & Science volume 30, pages 556–562 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective We investigated the knowledge and attitudes of community pharmacists towards pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in Kadıköy district of Istanbul (Turkey). Setting The community pharmacies in Kadikoy. Kadikoy is one of the biggest districts of Istanbul and has the largest number of pharmacies. Kadikoy district was divided into two regions, the central and the peripheral. Method Between December 2005 and June 2006 we conducted a survey about the knowledge and attitude of community pharmacists (n = 219) using a face-to-face questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of questions about the sociodemographic characteristics of the pharmacists, their knowledge of pharmacovigilance and their attitudes towards ADR reporting. Main outcomes measured The knowledge of pharmacovigilance practice, ADR reporting compliance rates, reasons for not reporting ADR and perceptions of the Turkish community pharmacists on pharmacovigilance practice were evaluated. Results Although all 411 pharmacies in the Kadikoy district were visited, only 53% of the community pharmacists (n = 219) consented to participate in the study. Of those that did respond, only 17.2% of the pharmacists had any knowledge about ‘pharmacovigilance’. Sixty-five percent of the pharmacists stated that patients reported an ADR to them during the previous 12 months, and 21% of pharmacists reported to the concerned organizations. Our survey showed that only 7% actually reported an ADR to the national pharmacovigilance center. On the other hand, 89% of the pharmacists believed that the role of the pharmacist in ADR reporting was essential. Conclusion The results show that Turkish community pharmacists have poor knowledge about pharmacovigilance. There is an urgent need for educational programs to train them about pharmacovigilance and ADR reporting.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Lundkvist J, Jönsson B. Pharmacoeconomics of adverse drug reactions. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2004;18(3):275–80.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. WHO publications. The importance of pharmacovigilance: safety monitoring of medicinal products. WHO Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring, Geneva, Switzerland; 2002. ISBN 92-4-159015-7.

  3. Pirmohamed M, Atuah KN, Dodoo AN, Winstanley P. Pharmacovigilance in developing countries. BMJ. 2007;335(7618):462.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. WHO. Pharmacovigilance: ensuring the safe use of medicines. WHO Policy Perspectives on Medicines, Geneva, Switzerland; 2004. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2004/WHO_EDM_2004.8.pdf. Accessed Oct 26th, 2007.

  5. FIP (International Pharmaceutical Federation) Statement of Policy: the role of the pharmacist in pharmacovigilance, Brazil; 2006. http://www.fip.org/www2/uploads/database_file.php?id=273&table_id=. Accessed Oct 26th, 2007.

  6. Lee KK, Chan TY, Raymond K, Critchley JA. Pharmacists’ attitudes toward adverse drug reaction reporting in Hong Kong. Ann Pharmacother. 1994;28(12):1400–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Generali JA, Danish MA, Rosenbaum SE. Knowledge of and attitudes about adverse drug reaction reporting among Rhode Island pharmacists. Ann Pharmacother. 1995;29(4):365–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A, Polónia J, Gestal-Otero JJ. Influence of pharmacists’ attitudes on adverse drug reaction reporting: a case–control study in Portugal. Drug Safety. 2006;29(4):331–40.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Granas AG, Buajordet M, Stenberg-Nilsen H, Harg P, Horn AM. Pharmacists’ attitudes towards the reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions in Norway. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safety. 2007;16(4):429–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Beşeri Tıbbi Ürünlerin Güvenliğinin İzlenmesi ve Değerlendirilmesi Hakkında Yönetmelik (22 Mart 2005 tarihli ve 25763 sayılı Resmi Gazete, yürürlüğe giriş tarihi: 30/06/2005) [Guide for the monitorization and evaluation of the medicinal products. Published in the official gazette in 30th March 2005 to become valid by 30th June 2005]. http://rega.basbakanlik.gov.tr/. Accessed Oct 26th, 2007.

  12. Ozcelikay G, Tekiner H. Turkiye’de Eczacılık Insan Gucunun Degerlendirilmesi ve Eczane Dagilimlari. [The distribution of the pharmacies in Turkey and evaluation of Pharmacist resources in Turkey]. Turkish Pharmacist Association Publications, Ankara, Turkey; 2007. ISBN 978-975-01139-4-9.

  13. Onder Ozhan. Eczacı Profili: 1998–2007 Son On Yıla Bir Bakış [The profile of the community pharmacists: 1998–2007 An overview of the last ten years]. Turkish Pharmacist Association Publications, Ankara, Turkey; Research Series 2007.

  14. Hazell L, Shakir SAW. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Safety. 2006;29(5):385–96.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Laing R. Role of dispensers in promoting rational drug use. WHO/INRUD Trainer’s Guide; 1997. http://dcc2.bumc.bu.edu/prdu/Session_Guides/role_of_dispensers_in_rational_d.htm. Accessed Oct 26th, 2007.

  16. Gedde-Dahl A, Harg P, Stenberg-Nilsen H, Buajordet M, Granas AG, Horn AM. Characteristics and quality of adverse drug reaction reports by pharmacists in Norway. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safety. 2007;16(9):999–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. van Grootheest K, Olsson S, Couper M, de Jong-van den Berg L. Pharmacists’ role in reporting adverse drug reactions in an international perspective. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safety. 2004;13(7):457–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the Ecehan Balta and Caner Eryol from the Turkish Pharmacists Association and to Cigdem Engin, the responsible pharmacist of Kadıköy Local Board of Health for their valuable contributions. They also thank to Aaron Weitzman from the University of Maryland, College Park for assistance in the final preparation of the article.

Funding

None

Conflicts of interest

None

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmacology, Marmara University School of Pharmacy, Tibbiye Cad. No: 49 Haydarpaşa, Istanbul, Turkey

    Hale Zerrin Toklu & Meral Keyer Uysal

Authors
  1. Hale Zerrin Toklu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Meral Keyer Uysal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hale Zerrin Toklu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Toklu, H.Z., Uysal, M.K. The knowledge and attitude of the Turkish community pharmacists toward pharmacovigilance in the Kadikoy district of Istanbul. Pharm World Sci 30, 556–562 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-008-9209-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-008-9209-4

Keywords

  • Adverse drug reaction reporting
  • Attitude
  • Community pharmacist
  • Community pharmacy
  • Knowledge
  • Pharmacovigilance
  • Turkey