斯里兰卡医疗保健专业人员药物不良反应报告的知识、态度和实践——一项横断面研究

IF 0.8 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Hospital Pharmacy Pub Date : 2023-09-09 DOI:10.1177/00185787231194988
Menikpurage Thilini Madhushika, Sudheera Sammanthi Jayasinghe, Polwaththa Gayani Chandima Liyanage, Wellappuli Arachchige Dilan Malinda, Palitha Abeykoon
{"title":"斯里兰卡医疗保健专业人员药物不良反应报告的知识、态度和实践——一项横断面研究","authors":"Menikpurage Thilini Madhushika, Sudheera Sammanthi Jayasinghe, Polwaththa Gayani Chandima Liyanage, Wellappuli Arachchige Dilan Malinda, Palitha Abeykoon","doi":"10.1177/00185787231194988","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: The objectives of this study were to describe the knowledge, attitudes and practices of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) reporting among healthcare professionals at Teaching Hospital Karapitiya (THK), a tertiary care hospital in Sri Lanka. Methodology: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted at THK. The healthcare professionals working in THK who were available during the study period were invited to the study. A self-administered pre-tested questionnaire was administered to the participants. Respondents were evaluated for their knowledge, attitudes and practices related to ADR reporting. The data were analyzed using SPSS statistical software. Results: Of the total 444 respondents, 31% were doctors and 69% were nurses. The majority of respondents, 90% (n = 400) were aware of the term ADR, while 64.8% (n = 288) could correctly define it. Among the respondents, 30.8% (n = 137) knew about the types of ADR and only 15.5% (n = 70) were able to mention a drug that is banned due to ADR correctly. Among the respondents, only 38.7% (n = 172) were aware of a formal process of reporting ADR and, only 35.3% (n = 157) stated that they had seen the ADR reporting form. Further, only 33.7% (n = 150) respondents have recognized ADR during their clinical practice and only a small proportion 18.2% (n = 81) have ever reported an ADR during their practice. Regarding attitudes toward ADR reporting, overall 84.1 (n = 373) had positive attitudes toward ADR reporting, while 13.54% (n = 60) of them stayed neutral and 2.25% (n = 10) had negative attitudes toward ADR reporting. Conclusions: Although the majority were aware of ADR , the knowledge and practices regarding spontaneous reporting of ADR are inadequate. However, most respondents have shown a positive attitude toward ADR reporting. A sincere and sustained effort should be made by concerned bodies to enhance the healthcare professionals’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding ADR reporting.","PeriodicalId":13002,"journal":{"name":"Hospital Pharmacy","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Among Healthcare Professionals in Sri Lanka- A Cross Sectional Study\",\"authors\":\"Menikpurage Thilini Madhushika, Sudheera Sammanthi Jayasinghe, Polwaththa Gayani Chandima Liyanage, Wellappuli Arachchige Dilan Malinda, Palitha Abeykoon\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00185787231194988\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives: The objectives of this study were to describe the knowledge, attitudes and practices of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) reporting among healthcare professionals at Teaching Hospital Karapitiya (THK), a tertiary care hospital in Sri Lanka. Methodology: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted at THK. The healthcare professionals working in THK who were available during the study period were invited to the study. A self-administered pre-tested questionnaire was administered to the participants. Respondents were evaluated for their knowledge, attitudes and practices related to ADR reporting. The data were analyzed using SPSS statistical software. Results: Of the total 444 respondents, 31% were doctors and 69% were nurses. The majority of respondents, 90% (n = 400) were aware of the term ADR, while 64.8% (n = 288) could correctly define it. Among the respondents, 30.8% (n = 137) knew about the types of ADR and only 15.5% (n = 70) were able to mention a drug that is banned due to ADR correctly. Among the respondents, only 38.7% (n = 172) were aware of a formal process of reporting ADR and, only 35.3% (n = 157) stated that they had seen the ADR reporting form. Further, only 33.7% (n = 150) respondents have recognized ADR during their clinical practice and only a small proportion 18.2% (n = 81) have ever reported an ADR during their practice. Regarding attitudes toward ADR reporting, overall 84.1 (n = 373) had positive attitudes toward ADR reporting, while 13.54% (n = 60) of them stayed neutral and 2.25% (n = 10) had negative attitudes toward ADR reporting. Conclusions: Although the majority were aware of ADR , the knowledge and practices regarding spontaneous reporting of ADR are inadequate. However, most respondents have shown a positive attitude toward ADR reporting. A sincere and sustained effort should be made by concerned bodies to enhance the healthcare professionals’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding ADR reporting.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13002,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hospital Pharmacy\",\"volume\":\"60 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hospital Pharmacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00185787231194988\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hospital Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00185787231194988","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是描述在斯里兰卡卡拉皮提亚教学医院(THK)的医疗保健专业人员对药物不良反应(ADR)报告的知识、态度和做法。方法:在香港电台进行了一项描述性横断面研究。我们邀请在研究期间在香港医院工作的医护专业人员参加研究。参与者自行填写一份预测问卷。评估受访者对不良反应报告的知识、态度和做法。采用SPSS统计软件对数据进行分析。结果:444名受访人员中,医生占31%,护士占69%。90% (n = 400)的受访者知道ADR, 64.8% (n = 288)的受访者能正确定义ADR。在被调查者中,30.8% (n = 137)的人知道ADR的种类,只有15.5% (n = 70)的人能正确说出因ADR被禁用的药品。在受访者中,只有38.7% (n = 172)的人知道有正式的ADR报告程序,只有35.3% (n = 157)的人表示见过ADR报告表格。此外,只有33.7% (n = 150)的受访者在临床实践中认识到不良反应,只有18.2% (n = 81)的受访者在实践中报告过不良反应。在对ADR报告的态度方面,84.1 (n = 373)的受访者对ADR报告持积极态度,13.54% (n = 60)的受访者对ADR报告持中立态度,2.25% (n = 10)的受访者对ADR报告持消极态度。结论:虽然大多数患者对ADR有一定的认识,但对ADR自发报告的认识和实践不足。然而,大多数受访者对药品不良反应报告持积极态度。有关机构应作出真诚和持续的努力,以提高卫生保健专业人员对不良反应报告的知识、态度和做法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Among Healthcare Professionals in Sri Lanka- A Cross Sectional Study
Objectives: The objectives of this study were to describe the knowledge, attitudes and practices of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) reporting among healthcare professionals at Teaching Hospital Karapitiya (THK), a tertiary care hospital in Sri Lanka. Methodology: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted at THK. The healthcare professionals working in THK who were available during the study period were invited to the study. A self-administered pre-tested questionnaire was administered to the participants. Respondents were evaluated for their knowledge, attitudes and practices related to ADR reporting. The data were analyzed using SPSS statistical software. Results: Of the total 444 respondents, 31% were doctors and 69% were nurses. The majority of respondents, 90% (n = 400) were aware of the term ADR, while 64.8% (n = 288) could correctly define it. Among the respondents, 30.8% (n = 137) knew about the types of ADR and only 15.5% (n = 70) were able to mention a drug that is banned due to ADR correctly. Among the respondents, only 38.7% (n = 172) were aware of a formal process of reporting ADR and, only 35.3% (n = 157) stated that they had seen the ADR reporting form. Further, only 33.7% (n = 150) respondents have recognized ADR during their clinical practice and only a small proportion 18.2% (n = 81) have ever reported an ADR during their practice. Regarding attitudes toward ADR reporting, overall 84.1 (n = 373) had positive attitudes toward ADR reporting, while 13.54% (n = 60) of them stayed neutral and 2.25% (n = 10) had negative attitudes toward ADR reporting. Conclusions: Although the majority were aware of ADR , the knowledge and practices regarding spontaneous reporting of ADR are inadequate. However, most respondents have shown a positive attitude toward ADR reporting. A sincere and sustained effort should be made by concerned bodies to enhance the healthcare professionals’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding ADR reporting.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Hospital Pharmacy
Hospital Pharmacy PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
63
期刊介绍: Hospital Pharmacy is a monthly peer-reviewed journal that is read by pharmacists and other providers practicing in the inpatient and outpatient setting within hospitals, long-term care facilities, home care, and other health-system settings The Hospital Pharmacy Assistant Editor, Michael R. Cohen, RPh, MS, DSc, FASHP, is author of a Medication Error Report Analysis and founder of The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), a nonprofit organization that provides education about adverse drug events and their prevention.
期刊最新文献
Cefepime/Enmetazobactam. Impact of a Medication Reconciliation Improvement Package on Adherence to Medication Reconciliation Among Internal Medicine Physicians: A Quality Improvement Project in a Lower-Middle Income Country. Implementing Research Into Practice as a Clinical Based New Practitioner Pharmacist. Phytonadione Utilization and the Risk of Bleeding in Chronic Liver Disease. Safety and Efficacy of Switching Patients With Type 2 Diabetes From Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists to Tirzepatide: A Case Series.
×
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