Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of Pharmacists’ Attitudes on Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting

A Case-Control Study in Portugal

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction: Pharmacists can play a fundamental role in adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting, although the factors that affect underreporting among these professionals are unknown. The objectives of this study were to identify (i) professional or demographic characteristics; and (ii) attitudes associated with pharmacists’ ADR reporting in northern Portugal.

Methods: We conducted a case-control study on a population of pharmacists employed in hospital and community pharmacies across Portugal’s Northern Regional Health Authority catchment area in 2003. Cases (n = 34) comprised pharmacists who had reported at least one ADR to the northern region’s drug surveillance unit, and controls (n = 280) were randomly sampled from pharmacists who had never reported an ADR. All were interviewed using a mail questionnaire. Most attitudes were based on Inman’s ‘seven deadly sins’ and were measured using a continuous visual analogue scale. Answers were recorded in a range from 0 (total disagreement) to 10 (total agreement). Logistic regression was used to determine the ADR reporting adjusted odds ratio (OR) for a change in exposure corresponding to the interquartile range for each attitude.

Results: The response rate was 86.8%. Reporting probability proved higher among hospital versus community pharmacists (adjusted OR 20.0; 95 CI 3.3, 125.0; p < 0.001). Attitudes to ADRs were strongly associated with reporting probability. Hence, an interquartile decrease in any of the following attitudes increased the probability of reporting by (i) 223% (95% CI 51, 595; p < 0.05) for “Really serious ADRs are well documented by the time a drug is marketed”; (ii) 240% (95% CI 89, 508; p = 0.002) for “I would only report an ADR if I were sure that it was related to the use of a particular drug”; (iii) 316% (95% CI 44, 1104; p = 0.010) for It is only necessary to report serious or unexpected ADRs; and (iv) 171% (95% CI 13, 549; p = 0.020) for “I do not have time to think about the involvement of the drug or other causes in ADRs”.

Conclusions: ADR under-reporting is strongly associated with certain attitudes, possibly indicating that under-reporting could be minimised through educational interventions targeted at changing such attitudes. Pharmacists’ ADR education must be improved and educational programmes should be focused on altering attitudes identified by the study as being associated with under-reporting. Our data also indicate that community pharmacists must be a priority target for this intervention.

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

Table I
Table II

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The full questionnaire is available on the {itDrug Safety} website ({rs|http://www.adisonline.com/drs|url|}).

References

  1. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalised patients. JAMA 1998; 279: 1200–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Einarson TR. Drug-related hospital admissions. Ann Pharmacother 1993; 27: 832–40

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 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; 3; 329: 15–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beijer HJM, Blaey CJ. Hospitalisations caused by adverse drug reactions (ADR): a meta-analysis of observational studies. Pharm World Sci 2002; 24: 46–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rawlins MD. Pharmacovigilance: paradise lost, regained or postponed? J R Coll Physicians Lond 1995; 29: 41–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Martin RM, Kapoor KV, Wilton LV, et al. Underreporting of suspected adverse drug reactions to newly marketed “black triangle” drugs in general practice: observational study. BMJ 1998; 317: 119–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Backstrom M, Mjorndal T, Dahlqvist R. Under-reporting of serious adverse drug reactions in Sweden. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2004; 13: 483–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mittmann N, Knowles SR, Gomez M, et al. Evaluation of the extent of under-reporting of serious adverse drug reactions: the case of toxic epidermal necrolysis. Drug Saf 2004; 27: 477–87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Instituto Nacional da Farmacia e do Medicamento (INFARMED). Farmacovigilancia em Portugal. Lisboa: INFARMED, 2003

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lee KKC, Chan TYK, Raymond K, et al. Pharmacists’ attitudes toward adverse drug reaction reporting in Hong Kong. Ann Pharmacother 1994; 28: 1400–3

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Roberts PI, Wolfson DJ, Booth TG. The role of pharmacists in adverse drug reaction reporting. Drug Saf 1994; 11: 7–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Fincham JE. Adverse drug reaction reporting and pharmacists. J Clin Pharm Ther 1989; 14: 79–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Green CG, Mottram DR, Raval D, et al. Community pharmacists’ attitudes to adverse drug reaction reporting. Int J Pharm Pract 1999; 7: 92–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Emerson A, Martin RM, Tomlin M, et al. Prospective cohort study of adverse events monitored by hospital pharmacists. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2001; 10: 95–103

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Forster AJ, Halil RB, Tierney MG. Pharmacist surveillance of adverse drug events. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2004; 61: 1466–72

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sinclair HK, Bond CM, Hannaford PC. Pharmacovigilance of over-the-counter products based in community pharmacy: a feasible option? Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1999; 8: 479–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Barnes J. Pharmacovigilance of herbal medicines: a UK perspective. Drug Saf 2003; 26: 829–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. van Grootheest AC. Improving pharmacovigilance and the role of the pharmacist [thesis]. Groningen: University of Groningen, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gree CF, Mottram DR, Rowe P, et al. An investigation into adverse drug reaction monitoring by United Kingdom hospital pharmacy departments. Int J Pharm Pract 1997; 5: 202–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 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: 457–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ahmad SR, Freiman JP, Graham DJ, et al. Quality of adverse drug experience reports submitted by pharmacists and physicians to the FDA. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1996; 5: 1–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Williams D, Feely J. Underreporting of adverse drug reaction attitudes of Irish doctors. Ir J Med Sci 1999; 168: 257–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Rogers AS, Israel E, Smith CR, et al. Physician knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour to reporting adverse drug events. Arch Intern Med 1988; 148: 1596–600

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Figueiras A, Tato F, Fontainas J, et al. Influence of physicians’ attitudes on reporting adverse drug events. Med Care 1999; 37: 809–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Scott HD, Thatcher A, Rosenbaum SE, et al. Adverse drug reaction reporting systems: the United Kingdom and the United States. R I Med J 1988; 71: 179–84

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Bateman DN, Sanders GLS, Rawlins MD. Attitudes to adverse drug reaction reporting in the Northern Region. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1992; 34: 421–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. 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: 223–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A, Polönia 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 

  33. Green FC, Mottram DR, Rowe PH, et al. Attitudes and knowledge of hospital pharmacists to adverse drug reaction reporting. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 51: 81–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Eland IA, Belton KJ, Van Grootheest AC, et al. Attitudinal survey of voluntary reporting of adverse drug reactions. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 48: 623–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Backstrom M, Mjorndal T, Dahlqvist R. Attitudes to reporting adverse drug reactions in northern Sweden. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 56: 729–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Inman WHW. Assessment drug safety problems. In: Gent M, Shigmatsu I, editors. Epidemiological issues in reported drug-induced illnesses. Honolulu (ON): McMaster University Library Press, 1976: 17–24

    Google Scholar 

  37. Grant S, Aitchison T, Henderson E, et al. A comparison of the reproducibility and the sensitivity to change of visual analogue scales, Borg scales, and Likert scales in normal subjects during submaximal exercise. Chest 1999; 116: 1208–17

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Lee A, Bateman DN, Edwards C, et al. Reporting of adverse drug reactions by hospital pharmacists: pilot scheme. BMJ 1997; 315(7107): 519

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Fincham J. A statewide program to stimulate reporting of adverse drug reactions. J Pharm Pract 1989; 4: 239–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Taras-Zasowski KM, Einarson TR. Review of Canadian pharmacist involvement in adverse drug reaction reporting. Can J Hosp Pharm 1989; 42: 105–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Calvert RT. Clinical pharmacy: a hospital perspective. Br J Clin Pharmacol 19990; 47: 231–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Herdeiro MT, Polonia J, Gestal-Otero JJ, et al. Factors that influence spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions: a model centralized in the medical professional. J Eval Clin Pract 2004; 10: 483–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Inman WHW. Attitudes to adverse drug reaction reporting. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1996; 41: 434–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Cox AR, Marriott JF, Wilson KA, et al. Adverse drug reaction teaching in UK undergraduate medical and pharmacy programmes. J Clin Pharm Ther 2004; 29: 31–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Moore N. The role of the clinical pharmacologist in the management of adverse drug reactions. Drug Saf 2001; 24: 1–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Figueiras A, Montes A, Gestal-Otero JJ. Participacion de los medicos en encuestas por correo [letter]. Med Clin (Barc) 1994; 103: 719

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Data were supplied by the northern Portugal sections of the National Association of Pharmacies and Hospital Pharmaceutical Association. The authors wish to thank the Programa de Desenvolvimento Educativo para Portugal (PRODEP), Portugal’s Educational Development Programme, for funding the study and the National Association of Pharmacies, the Hospital Pharmaceutical Association and the pharmacists who responded to our questionnaire. Dr Figueiras’ work on this project was funded in part by Health Research Fund (Fondo de Investigation Sanitaria) grants 99/1189 from the Spanish Ministry of Health.

The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.

Thanks must also go to Michael Benedict for his help with the English version of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Facultad de Medicina, University of c/ San Francisco s/n, Santiago de Compostela, (A Coruñ a), 15705, Spain

    Maria T. Herdeiro,  Adolfo Figueiras & J J Gestal-Otero

  2. Northern Polytechnic Health Institute (Cooperativa de Ensino Superior Politécnico e Universitário [CESPU]), Gandra, Porto, Portugal

    Maria T. Herdeiro

  3. Northern Pharmacovigilance Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Jorge Polónia

  4. Preventive Medicine Service, University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

    J J Gestal-Otero

Authors
  1. Maria T. Herdeiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adolfo Figueiras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jorge Polónia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J J Gestal-Otero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adolfo Figueiras.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Herdeiro, M.T., Figueiras, A., Polónia, J. et al. Influence of Pharmacists’ Attitudes on Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting. Drug-Safety 29, 331–340 (2006). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200629040-00004

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200629040-00004

Keywords

Search

Navigation