A Systematic Review of Pharmacovigilance Systems in Developing Countries Using the WHO Pharmacovigilance Indicators

Abstract

Background In the context of the growth of pharmacovigilance (PV) among developing countries, this systematic review aims to synthesise current research evaluating developing countries’ PV systems’ performance. Methods EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus and Web of Science were searched for peer-reviewed studies published in English between 2012 and 2021. Reference lists of included studies were screened. Included studies were quality assessed using Hawker et al.'s nine-item checklist; data were extracted using the WHO PV indicators checklist. Scores were assigned to each group of indicators and used to compare countries’ PV performance. Results Twenty-one unique studies from 51 countries were included. Of a total possible quality score of 36, most studies were rated medium (n = 7 studies) or high (n = 14 studies). Studies obtained an average score of 17.2 out of a possible 63 of the WHO PV indicators. PV system performance in all 51 countries was low (14.86/63; range: 0–26). Higher average scores were obtained in the ‘Core’ (9.27/27) compared to ‘Complementary’ (5.59/36) indicators. Overall performance for ‘Process’ and ‘Outcome’ indicators was lower than that of ‘Structural’. Conclusion This first systematic review of studies evaluating PV performance in developing countries provides an in-depth understanding of factors affecting PV system performance.

Benchmarking Drug Regulatory Systems for Capacity Building: An Integrative Review of Tools, Practice and Recommendations

“…The description of 43 articles is presented in Table 1 . 11 - 15 , 18 - 20 , 26 - 60 The research design included literature review (n = 3), 28 , 32 , 49 expert interview (n = 1), 48 empirical analysis (n = 2), 43 , 52 comparative analysis (n = 7), 12 , 15 , 35 , 42 , 47 , 58 , 59 retrospective analysis (n = 2), 19 , 41 questionnaire (n = 10), 14 , 20 , 26 , 27 , 37 - 40 , 55 , 56 description analysis (n = 6), 11 , 13 , 33 , 36 , 45 , 60 and mixed methods (n = 12). 18 , 29 - 31 , 34 , 44 , 46 , 50 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 57…”

Evaluation of health care professionals’ knowledge, attitudes, practices and barriers to pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction reporting: A cross-sectional multicentral study

“…Various studies have found similar trends, with the majority of HCPs failing to report any ADR despite encountering it during their practice [ 15 , 17 , 37 , 47 ]. The rate of ADR reporting by various HCPs is very low in many countries [ 18 , 32 , 48 , 49 ] including Türkiye [ 20 – 22 , 50 ]. Our finding revealed that a higher proportion of pharmacists (55%) reported ADRs as compared to other HCPs.…”

Cross-sectional study of pharmacovigilance knowledge, attitudes, and practices based on structural equation modeling and network analysis: a case study of healthcare personnel and the public in Yunnan Province

“…Pharmacovigilance is crucial for drug safety and public health, particularly in emerging economies like China, where healthcare transformations necessitate improved pharmacovigilance knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) among healthcare professionals and the public ( 1 , 2 ). As the global pharmaceutical market evolves, countries are enhancing their pharmacovigilance systems to meet international safety standards and regulatory benchmarks, such as the Good Regulatory Practices (GRP) introduced by the World Health Organization in 2021, aiming to standardize drug safety measures worldwide ( 3 , 4 ). This effort underscores pharmacovigilance’s key role in ensuring drug safety, reflecting a global consensus on the need for stringent regulatory frameworks.…”