Healthcare professionals knowledge, attitude and practice of adverse drug reactions reporting in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study

Gidey, Kidu; Seifu, Mohammedamin; Hailu, Berhane Yohannes; Asgedom, Solomon Weldegebreal; Niriayo, Yirga Legesse

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034553

Cited by 35 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From 13 reviewed studies, one study [ 31 ] and two studies [ 23 , 25 ] did not report the knowledge and attitudes of health care professionals towards ADR reporting, respectively. The knowledge and attitude of health care professionals towards ADR reporting ranged from 22.68% to 60.33% and 47.22% to 67.14%, respectively, with an average of 41.50% and 57.18% ( Table 2 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting in Ethiopia: Systematic Review

Hailu¹,

Mohammed

2020

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adverse drug reactions are major global public health problems and an important cause of mortality. Problems related to medicines safety can emerge from real-life medication use due to increasing access to complex treatment of concomitant infectious and noncommunicable diseases, hence leading to a higher prevalence of drug-related problems. The objective of this review was to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice of adverse drug reaction reporting among health care professionals in Ethiopia. Relevant literatures were searched from Google Scholar, PubMed, Hinari, Web of Science, Scopus, and Science Direct using inclusion and exclusion criteria. From 133 searched studies, 13 studies were reviewed. The knowledge and attitude of health care professionals towards adverse drug reaction reporting ranged from 22.68% -60.33% and 47.22% -67.14%, with averages of 41.50% and 57.18%, respectively. While 46.93% encountered adverse drug reactions and 41.8% reported in the last 12 months. One-third (34.15%) of health care professionals do not know how to report adverse drug reactions. Fearing to report, uncertainty about the adverse drug reaction, concern about reporting generating extra work, thinking that one report does not make any difference, nonavailability of reporting forms, and lack of feedback from regulatory authority were the stated reasons for underreporting. We conclude that the knowledge, attitude, and practice of health care professionals towards spontaneous ADR reporting were low. Conducting awareness and educational training and implementation of electronic reporting can improve the ADR reporting practice.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting in Ethiopia: Systematic Review

Hailu¹,

Mohammed

2020

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This finding is similar to that of Gidey et al, who reported that 68% of HCPs did not report ADRs, even when they encountered them. 21 On analysing the factors influencing the incident reporting, we found that 66% of the faculty and HCPs agreed that the "possible negative effect on the relationship with employees" was the most common factor influencing incident reporting. Khan observed that only 10% of HCPs perceived the "lack of confidence to discuss an ADR with a colleague" as a factor discouraging ADR reporting.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Awareness, Attitudes, Practices, and Perceived Barriers to Medical Error Incident Reporting Among Faculty and Health Care Practitioners (HCPs) in a Dental Clinic

Alzain

Althumairi

2021

JMDH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Good Catch programs are being increasingly embraced by the Saudi healthcare system to improve incidence reporting rates and patient safety. However, dental health care is at a critical stage of promoting a safety culture; there is insufficient use of incident reporting systems (IRS) in several dental schools. Therefore, in this study, we evaluated the level of awareness, attitudes, practices, and perceived barriers to incident reporting among faculty and health care practitioners (HCPs) working in a university dental clinic. Methods: It is a cross-sectional study design where participants have been recruited from faculty working in a dental clinic at Imam Abdulrahman bin Faisal University during the year 2019. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed including domains of awareness, attitude, practice, and barriers to use. Results: A total of 199 completed questionnaires were received. HCPs differed with respect to their levels of awareness, attitudes, and practices of incident reporting when compared with non-Saudi HCPs. Nurses showed high awareness scores (X= 4.4, p <0.001), practice scores (X= 3.61, p <0.001), and attitudes (X= 3.9, p <0.001) in comparison with dentists and interns. The respondents agreed that the most common factor that influenced the rate of their incident reporting was "possible negative effect on the relationship with employees.". Conclusion: Nurses showed higher levels of awareness, attitude, and practice regarding IRS than did dentists and interns. We uncovered key factors influencing incident reporting among the faculty and HCPs in a university dental clinic. These findings could aid policymakers to focus on these factors so as to frame appropriate strategies to encourage incident reporting and to improve the effective use of the IRS.

show abstract

“…At the same time, the majority did not even send any ADR during their practice period despite the ADR reporting system's vital opinions, which reliable with previous studies. [9,10,13,14,18,19,[21][22][23]25,26,32,33,[44][45][46][47][48][49] Further, it might be the ADR not readily obtainable at the front medical disk or nursing station at the wards or clinics. The ADR reporting system was incompetently implemented with most practice elements related to inadequate knowledge of physicians of the practice or not practice or seldom doing the exercise of ADR reporting system and contained with another study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second part had selected practice rudiments of the ADR system responsible for reporting ADR, the number of ADR reporting and the methods of ADR reporting system from previous literature. [9,12,13,15,19,[21][22][23][24]26,[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] The 5-point Likert response scale system was employed with closed-ended questions. The sample calculated as crosssectional study according previous literature with the confidence level 95% with z score of 1.96, margin of error (5-6.5%), unlimited populations size, populations' percentage (50%) and drop-out rate (10%).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More than 80 % did not get a training program about ADR and reporting system. [9,12,13,15,19,[21][22][23][24]26,[28][29][30][31][32] In Saudi Arabia, the number of studies showed to assess practice toward ADR reporting or pharmacovigilance between healthcare professionals, in Dammam city, 135 participants (17 physicians of participants) designated 88.22% of the participants did not report ADRs. In contrast, 57.7% have skilled ADRs during their professional.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Physician’s Practice of Adverse Drug Reaction in Saudi Arabia

Alomi¹,

Alamoudi²,

Almasoudi³

2021

IJPCS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To discover the healthcare providers (physicians and dentists) practice of the adverse drug reaction reporting system in Saudi Arabia. Methods: It was a crosssectional study with a self-administered electronic authenticated survey distributed to Saudi Arabia physicians and dentists. The survey contained of demographic data and rudiments of practicing the ADR reporting system, the number of ADR reported, the method of ADR reporting systems. Results: The total number of participants was 151. Of those, 111 (73.5%) were physicians, while dentists were 39 (26.5%). Of those 52 (35.68%), only those who reported the ADR despite most responders 138 (92.62%) thought the ADR reporting system was critical. The average scores of physicians practice ADR elements were 2.59. The physicians and dentists' responders had a high score of the agreement; ADR's essential tasks as a pharmacist. Conclusion: Over the past twenty years, more than theory studies and our study specified that ADR physicians' reporting was terrible. The switching accountability of ADR reporting from healthcare providers to the pharmacist is highly suggested.

show abstract

Healthcare professionals knowledge, attitude and practice of adverse drug reactions reporting in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study

Cited by 35 publications

References 30 publications

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting in Ethiopia: Systematic Review

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting in Ethiopia: Systematic Review

Awareness, Attitudes, Practices, and Perceived Barriers to Medical Error Incident Reporting Among Faculty and Health Care Practitioners (HCPs) in a Dental Clinic

Physician’s Practice of Adverse Drug Reaction in Saudi Arabia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About