Consumers' knowledge and experiences of adverse drug reaction reporting in Australia: a national survey.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-12 DOI:10.1007/s00228-024-03729-y
Mohammed Gebre Dedefo, Renly Lim, Gizat M Kassie, Elizabeth Roughead, Lisa Kalisch Ellett
{"title":"Consumers' knowledge and experiences of adverse drug reaction reporting in Australia: a national survey.","authors":"Mohammed Gebre Dedefo, Renly Lim, Gizat M Kassie, Elizabeth Roughead, Lisa Kalisch Ellett","doi":"10.1007/s00228-024-03729-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to investigate the current knowledge and experiences of consumers in Australia on adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting and their reasons for reporting or not reporting ADRs, with a focus on the use of digital tools for ADR reporting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among adults who had taken medicine in Australia. A structured questionnaire with multiple choice or Likert scale responses with an option for participants to provide free-text responses and pretested for face validity was used. Consumer characteristics, knowledge, and ADR reporting practices were analyzed using descriptive statistics and the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 544 survey responses were included in the analysis. The majority of respondents were women (68%), and 22% were aged between 65 and 74 years. Fifty-eight percent (n = 317) of respondents knew that they could report ADRs to either the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), state or territory government health department, or healthcare professionals. Three-quarters (n = 405) of respondents stated that they had experienced an ADR; of these, 36% reported an ADR to either the TGA, state or territory government health department, or healthcare professionals. Among those who reported ADRs, 58% were unaware that they could use digital tools to report ADRs. The main reason for not reporting was that they did not think the ADR was serious enough to report (39%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Over half of consumers knew that they could report ADR; however, improved consumer awareness about using digital tools for ADR reporting and increased ADR reporting is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11393011/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-024-03729-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the current knowledge and experiences of consumers in Australia on adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting and their reasons for reporting or not reporting ADRs, with a focus on the use of digital tools for ADR reporting.

Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among adults who had taken medicine in Australia. A structured questionnaire with multiple choice or Likert scale responses with an option for participants to provide free-text responses and pretested for face validity was used. Consumer characteristics, knowledge, and ADR reporting practices were analyzed using descriptive statistics and the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test.

Results: A total of 544 survey responses were included in the analysis. The majority of respondents were women (68%), and 22% were aged between 65 and 74 years. Fifty-eight percent (n = 317) of respondents knew that they could report ADRs to either the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), state or territory government health department, or healthcare professionals. Three-quarters (n = 405) of respondents stated that they had experienced an ADR; of these, 36% reported an ADR to either the TGA, state or territory government health department, or healthcare professionals. Among those who reported ADRs, 58% were unaware that they could use digital tools to report ADRs. The main reason for not reporting was that they did not think the ADR was serious enough to report (39%).

Conclusion: Over half of consumers knew that they could report ADR; however, improved consumer awareness about using digital tools for ADR reporting and increased ADR reporting is needed.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
澳大利亚消费者对药品不良反应报告的了解和经验:一项全国性调查。
本研究旨在调查澳大利亚消费者目前对药物不良反应(ADR)报告的了解和经验,以及他们报告或不报告ADR的原因,重点是使用数字工具报告ADR:方法:对在澳大利亚服药的成年人进行了一项横断面在线调查。调查使用了结构化问卷,问卷中包含多项选择或李克特量表回答,参与者可选择提供自由文本回答,并对问卷的面效度进行了预先测试。采用描述性统计、卡方检验或费雪精确检验对消费者特征、知识和 ADR 报告方法进行了分析:共有 544 份调查回复被纳入分析。大多数受访者为女性(68%),22%的受访者年龄在 65 至 74 岁之间。58%的受访者(n = 317)知道他们可以向治疗用品管理局(TGA)、州或地区政府卫生部门或医疗保健专业人员报告药物不良反应。四分之三(n = 405)的受访者表示他们曾发生过药物不良反应;其中 36% 的受访者向治疗用品管理局、州或地区政府卫生部门或医疗保健专业人员报告了药物不良反应。在报告药物不良反应的受访者中,58%的人不知道他们可以使用数字工具报告药物不良反应。不报告的主要原因是他们认为不良反应的严重程度不足以报告(39%):超过半数的消费者知道他们可以报告 ADR;但是,需要提高消费者对使用数字工具报告 ADR 的认识,并增加 ADR 报告。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1