How do UK dentists deal with adverse drug reaction reporting?

Yip, James; Radford, David R.; Brown, David T.

doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2013.426

Cited by 16 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This can be attributed to unfamiliarity of the study participants to the PvPI or lack in syllabus of the dental curriculum which covers this topic in detail. Similar results have been reported by Khan et al 15 and Palaian et al 16 among health-care professionals in Nepal and Rajesh et al 17 The low objective knowledge scores among dentists in this study were in agreement with the studies done by Khan et al 15 Contrasting results have been observed in a Graph 1: Term PV as understood by study participants study performed by dentists in the United Kingdom by Yip et al 18 Studies done among medical health professionals of developed countries like the United States and the United Kingdom have shown better knowledge scores. [19][20][21] In the United Kingdom and the United States, most of the medical and dental schools have introduced a yellow card ADR reporting system in the undergraduate syllabus and their skills are also assessed.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices regarding Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reaction reporting among Dental Students in a Teaching Hospital, Jodhpur, India: A Cross-sectional Study

Chhabra¹,

Sharma²,

Chhabra³

et al. 2017

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: This is a cross-sectional knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAPs) study on pharmacovigilance (PV) and adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting among dental students in a teaching hospital in India. Aim:The aim of this study was to assess the KAP of dental students regarding PV, ADR reporting, and barriers toward the same. Materials and methods:A cross-sectional survey using a selfadministered, investigator-developed, close-ended questionnaire was conducted in an academic dental hospital in India. All prescribers including third year students, final year students, and house surgeons of the same institute were included for assessment of KAP regarding PV using 16, 8, and 8 items respectively. Data regarding barriers toward ADR reporting and demographics were also collected. Mann-Whitney U-test and Kruskal-Wallis test were applied followed by post hoc test.Results: A total of 241 of 275 respondents participated in the study with a response rate of 87.5%. Overall, 64% reported that they had no idea about the term PV. Age was significantly associated with knowledge (p = 0.045) and attitude (p = 0.016). Barriers contributing to underreporting were difficulty in deciding whether or not an ADR has occurred (52.0%), concerns that the report may be wrong (37%), lack of confidence to discuss ADR with colleagues (29%), and almost no financial benefits (24%). Knowledge Conclusion:Participants had a comparatively favorable attitude toward PV, but their knowledge and practice need considerable improvements. This study highlights the need for appropriate dental curriculum changes and further multicentric studies to shed more light on important issues of PV among dentists in India.Clinical significance: This study explores dentists' knowledge, attitude, and behavior regarding PV, which could help to improve patient's safety and care. The favorable attitude of dentists is an indication that PV could be added in depth in the curriculum and in general practice. Information on barriers for reporting the ADRs could help to find possible solutions for removing the barriers precisely.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices regarding Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reaction reporting among Dental Students in a Teaching Hospital, Jodhpur, India: A Cross-sectional Study

Chhabra¹,

Sharma²,

Chhabra³

et al. 2017

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A significantly ( P = 0.003) greater awareness about ADR reporting system was observed among dental practitioners with more years in practice, in a study done outside India. [ 21 ] A lack of difference in knowledge and attitudes was observed in other studies involving medical faculty and post graduates. [ 14 17 ] It appears that the undergraduate and post graduate training program are lacking in mentoring the doctors for the task of pharmacovigilance and a comprehensive multi-level approach is required to address this problem.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…A previous study from UK found awareness about ADR reporting system in 74.6% of dental practitioners. [ 21 ] Between 30% and 90% of medical doctors have been found to be aware of ADR reporting system in other studies in India. [ 14 15 16 17 18 ] Currently, ADR reporting system is not completely established as India is in the process of implementing PvPI in a phase wise manner across the country.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A study of knowledge, attitudes, and practice of dental doctors about adverse drug reaction reporting in a teaching hospital in India

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:The aim was to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and practice of dental doctors about adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting.Materials and Methods:In a cross-sectional study, questionnaire was administered to 95 dental doctors working in a teaching dental hospital attached to a medical college with an ADR monitoring center (AMC).Statistical Analysis Used:Descriptive statistics were used to analyze responses. The association of knowledge and attitude with respect to position of dentists was analyzed with Chi-square test.Results:The response rate and spontaneous reporting rate was found to be 61.0% and 13.7%, respectively. Important factors contributing to under reporting of ADRs include lack of awareness about AMC in the institute (81.0%) and pharmacovigilance program (72.4%), complacency (67.2%), lack of training to identify ADRs (65.5%), fear factor (63.7%), lethargy (58.6%), lack of risk perception of over the counter product related ADR (39.6%), inadequate risk perception of nonallopathic and herbal medicines (31%), indifference (27.5%) and concern that report may be wrong (27.5%). No significant difference in knowledge and attitudes of doctors with respect to position was found except for reporting of ADRs of newly marketed drugs and serious reactions to established product (P < 0.05).Conclusion:The deficiencies in knowledge and attitudes appear to be the underlying factor for under reporting by dental practitioners. It should be addressed urgently in order to increase spontaneous reporting by them.

show abstract

“…A survey of dentists in the UK revealed that one reason for the lack of reporting of ADRs by dentists was the rarity of oral adverse effects . Previous suggestions to improve ADR reporting include collaboration between dental and pharmacy industries to target recognition of oral ADRs and the incorporation of pharmacovigilance education into undergraduate dental training . It is also recommended to list oral ADRs separately in the registered product information so they are easily found, as the current convention is to list them in the “gastrointestinal” section.…”

Section: Other Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although ADRs are underreported throughout the health industry, the contribution by dentists is extremely limited with 47 cases of ADRs reported by dentists in the past decade to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in Australia, and dentists have contributed merely 0.1% of ADR reports since voluntary recording began in 1971 . Previous studies have also shown variable awareness and knowledge of ADR reporting by dentists …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

A review and guide to drug‐associated oral adverse effects—Dental, salivary and neurosensory reactions. Part 1

Teoh

Moses

McCullough

2019

J Oral Pathology Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous adverse drug reactions (ADR) manifest in the oral cavity and orofacial region. Dentists and other health professionals commonly encounter and manage these adverse effects however, due to lack of awareness and training, they are not always recognised as being drug‐induced nor reported to pharmacovigilance agencies. The broad diversity and increasing number of medications for which dental pharmacovigilance is needed can be overwhelming for all health professionals. Thus, the aim of this review and guide was to outline the common medications associated with orofacial side effects so as to improve recognition, management and reporting of ADR. Adverse effects discussed in Part 1 include drug‐induced bruxism, tardive dyskinesia, hairy tongue, gingival enlargement, hypersalivation, xerostomia, tooth discolouration and taste disturbance.

show abstract

How do UK dentists deal with adverse drug reaction reporting?

Abstract: Under-reporting of ADRs by healthcare professionals is a recognised phenomenon and GDPs appear to be no exception. The effect of providing additional postgraduate training on ADR reporting should be investigated.

Cited by 16 publications

References 15 publications

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices regarding Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reaction reporting among Dental Students in a Teaching Hospital, Jodhpur, India: A Cross-sectional Study

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices regarding Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reaction reporting among Dental Students in a Teaching Hospital, Jodhpur, India: A Cross-sectional Study

A study of knowledge, attitudes, and practice of dental doctors about adverse drug reaction reporting in a teaching hospital in India

A review and guide to drug‐associated oral adverse effects—Dental, salivary and neurosensory reactions. Part 1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About