Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Views of parents and pharmacists following participation in a paediatric pharmacovigilance study

  • Short Research Report
  • Published:
Pharmacy World & Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective To explore the experiences and views of community pharmacists and parents participating in a prospective paediatric pharmacovigilance study. Method Twenty-five pharmacists and 32 parents were approached for telephone interview. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically to identify recurring issues and themes. Results Seventeen pharmacists and 22 parents were interviewed. Parents and pharmacists agreed that more information about the side effects of medicines in children was required. Both groups reported willingness to participate in future prospective pharmacovigilance studies, although pharmacists expressed concerns about the lack of financial incentives. Pharmacists reported that parents had concerns regarding the confidentiality of their child’s ADR data and the study data collection process. Conclusion This study highlighted positive and negative opinions of parents and pharmacists regarding their experiences in this research project. Maintaining confidentiality in relation to indication and medicines prescribed were important issues for parents whereas time constraints and lack of financial incentives were key issues influencing participation by community pharmacists.

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

References

  1. BMA. Reporting adverse drug reactions—a BMA policy document. BMA, London. 1996. http://www.bma.org.uk/images/ADRFinal_tcm41-20713.pdf. Accessed 22 Dec 2009.

  2. Choonara I. Direct reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions by patients. J R Soc Med. 2004;97:316–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rawlins MD. Pharmacovigilance: paradise lost, regained or postponed? The William Withering Lecture 1994. J R Coll Phys Lond. 1995;29(1):41–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Belton KJ, Lewis SC, Payne S, Rawlins MD, Wood SM. Attitudinal survey of ADR reporting by medical practitioners in the United Kingdom. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1995;39:223–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Carleton BC, Smith MA, Gelin MN, Heathcote SC. Paediatric adverse drug reaction reporting: understanding and future directions. Can J Clin Pharmacol. 2006;14(1):45–57.

    Google Scholar 

  6. McLay JS, Tanaka M, Ekins-Daukes S, Helms PJ. A prospective questionnaire assessment of attitudes and experiences of off label prescribing amongst hospital based paediatricians. Arch Dis Child. 2006;91:584–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cox A. Embracing ADR reporting could improve pharmacists’ standing. Pharm J. 2002;269:14.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Tobaiqy M, Bond C, Helms P, Lee A, Stewart D, McCaig D, Bateman N A, McLay JS. A pilot study to evaluate a community pharmacy based monitoring system to identify adverse drug reactions associated with paediatric medicines use. Eu J Clin Pharm. 2010. doi:10.1007/s00228-010-0790-9.

  9. Stewart D, Helms P, McCaig D, Bond C, McLay J. Monitoring adverse drug reactions in children using community pharmacies: a pilot study. Br J Clin Pharm. 2005;59(6):677–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Marshall MN. Sampling for qualitative research. Fam Pract. 1996;13:522–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Armour C, Brillant M, Krass I. Pharmacists’ views on involvement in pharmacy practice research: strategies for facilitating participation. Pharm Pract. 2007;5(2):59–66.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Adrianne F, de Jong-van den Berg LTW, Netjes K, et al. Recruitment of parents and physicians of stimulant-using children via community pharmacies is successful. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:1072–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Alvarez-Requejo A, Carvalja A, Bégaud B, Moride Y, Verga T, Martín Arias LH. Underreporting of adverse drug reactions—estimate based on a spontaneous reporting schema and a sentinel system. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;54:483–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dickerson FB, Sommerville J, Origoni AE, Ringel NB, Parente F. Experiences of stigma among outpatients with schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 2002;28:143–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank all the parents and community pharmacists who took part in this research and administration staff at Aberdeen University.

Funding

We acknowledge funding provided by the Scottish Chief Scientist’s Office (CSO).

Conflicts of interest

There were no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Applied Health Sciences, The Aberdeen Medical School, The University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK

    Mansour Tobaiqy, Peter J. Helms & James McLay

  2. School of Pharmacy and Life Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK

    Derek Stewart

  3. Centre of Academic Primary Care, The Aberdeen Medical School, The University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

    Christine M. Bond & Amanda Jane Lee

Authors
  1. Mansour Tobaiqy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Derek Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter J. Helms
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christine M. Bond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Amanda Jane Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. James McLay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James McLay.

Additional information

We hereby certify that this paper has not been submitted elsewhere in similar form, and all authors have contributed significantly to the publication. All authors are aware of the submission and agree with it.

Appendix

Appendix

Parents interview schedule

  1. (1)

    What’s your child’s age?

  2. (2)

    What’s your child’s sex?

  3. (3)

    What’s the first half of your postcode?

  4. (4)

    Were you happy to take part in this project? If no please give reasons?

  5. (5)

    Did the pharmacist clearly explain the study to you?

  6. (6)

    Has your doctor or pharmacists ever spoken to you before about possible side effects of your child’s medicines? If yes, please describe.

  7. (7)

    Have you ever asked your doctor or pharmacist about possible side effects of your child’s medicines? If yes, please describe.

  8. (8)

    Did you have any difficulties in completing the questionnaire? If yes what were they? If yes please describe?

  9. (9)

    Do you have any suggestions as to how the questionnaire could be improved?

  10. (10)

    If your child did have a side effect due to their medicine would you prefer to report it by a phone or fill in a questionnaire?

  11. (11)

    Have you ever read anything or obtained information from the Internet on side effects of medicines in children? If yes, please describe.

  12. (12)

    Are you concerned about side effects of medicine in children?

Pharmacists interview schedule

  1. (1)

    What type of pharmacy do you work in (independent, multiple)?

  2. (2)

    What’s the location of your pharmacy (rural, urban)?

  3. (3)

    How many staff work in your pharmacy? Pharmacists, dispensing assistants, shop staff.

  4. (4)

    What’s the average number of prescriptions/items you dispense per month?

  5. (5)

    Do you remember recruiting any parents/guardians to this study?

  6. (6)

    Did you have any difficulties in recruiting parents/guardians to the study? If yes, can you please describe what the difficulties were, and any steps you took to overcome them.

  7. (7)

    Did you get any feedback from the parents/guardians about this project? If yes what was it?

  8. (8)

    Did you get any questions from parents/guardians in relation to ADRs? In general, about study medications, if yes, please describe.

  9. (9)

    Do you think community pharmacists should be routinely involved in ADR monitoring and reporting in children? Please explain.

  10. (10)

    Did you benefit in anyway by taking part in this study? Please explain.

  11. (11)

    Do you think this approach to ADR monitoring could become a standard part of your pharmacy practice?

  12. (12)

    Would you be interested in being involved in other studies such as this?

  13. (13)

    Do you have any suggestions for improving the participation of pharmacists in such studies?

  14. (14)

    Would paying community pharmacists a professional fee encourage response and involvement in this project, if yes how much?

  15. (15)

    Do you think reporting ADRs by a phone using a Hotline would increase patient’s response in such studies?

  16. (16)

    Would you be interested in a long term ongoing role such as we have in this study, to complement the existing yellow card scheme?

  17. (17)

    Do you have any general comments? Regarding this study and ADR monitoring in general.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tobaiqy, M., Stewart, D., Helms, P.J. et al. Views of parents and pharmacists following participation in a paediatric pharmacovigilance study. Pharm World Sci 32, 334–338 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-010-9374-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-010-9374-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation