信息信对药品不良反应报告率及报告质量的影响:一项随机对照研究。

Marie-Louise Johansson, Staffan Hägg, Susanna M Wallerstedt
{"title":"信息信对药品不良反应报告率及报告质量的影响:一项随机对照研究。","authors":"Marie-Louise Johansson,&nbsp;Staffan Hägg,&nbsp;Susanna M Wallerstedt","doi":"10.1186/1472-6904-11-14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is an important method for pharmacovigilance, but under-reporting and poor quality of reports are major limitations. The aim of this study was to evaluate if repeated one-page ADR information letters affect (i) the reporting rate of ADRs and (ii) the quality of the ADR reports.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All 151 primary healthcare units in the Region Västra Götaland, Sweden, were randomly allocated (1:1) to an intervention (n = 77) or a control group (n = 74). The intervention consisted of one-page ADR information letters administered at three occasions during 2008 to all physicians and nurses in the intervention units. The number of ADR reports received from the 151 units was registered, as was the quality of the reports, which was defined as high if the ADR was to be reported according to Swedish regulations, that is, if the ADR was (i) serious, (ii) unexpected, and/or (iii) related to the use of new drugs and not labelled as common in the Summary of Product Characteristics. A questionnaire was administered to evaluate if the ADR information letter had reached the intended recipient.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Before the intervention, no significant differences in reporting rate or number of high quality reports could be detected between the randomization groups. In 2008, 79 reports were sent from 37 intervention units and 52 reports from 30 control units (mean number of reports per unit ± standard deviation: 1.0 ± 2.5 vs. 0.7 ± 1.2, P = 0.34). The number of high quality reports was higher in intervention units than in control units (37 vs. 15 reports, 0.5 ± 0.9 vs. 0.2 ± 0.6, P = 0.048). According to the returned questionnaires (n = 1,292, response rate 57%), more persons in the intervention than in the control group had received (29% vs. 19%, P < 0.0001) and read (31% vs. 26%, P < 0.0001) an ADR information letter.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study suggests that repeated ADR information letters to physicians and nurses do not increase the ADR reporting rate, but may increase the number of high quality reports.</p>","PeriodicalId":9196,"journal":{"name":"BMC Clinical Pharmacology","volume":"11 ","pages":"14"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1472-6904-11-14","citationCount":"31","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of information letters on the reporting rate of adverse drug reactions and the quality of the reports: a randomized controlled study.\",\"authors\":\"Marie-Louise Johansson,&nbsp;Staffan Hägg,&nbsp;Susanna M Wallerstedt\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/1472-6904-11-14\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is an important method for pharmacovigilance, but under-reporting and poor quality of reports are major limitations. The aim of this study was to evaluate if repeated one-page ADR information letters affect (i) the reporting rate of ADRs and (ii) the quality of the ADR reports.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All 151 primary healthcare units in the Region Västra Götaland, Sweden, were randomly allocated (1:1) to an intervention (n = 77) or a control group (n = 74). The intervention consisted of one-page ADR information letters administered at three occasions during 2008 to all physicians and nurses in the intervention units. The number of ADR reports received from the 151 units was registered, as was the quality of the reports, which was defined as high if the ADR was to be reported according to Swedish regulations, that is, if the ADR was (i) serious, (ii) unexpected, and/or (iii) related to the use of new drugs and not labelled as common in the Summary of Product Characteristics. A questionnaire was administered to evaluate if the ADR information letter had reached the intended recipient.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Before the intervention, no significant differences in reporting rate or number of high quality reports could be detected between the randomization groups. In 2008, 79 reports were sent from 37 intervention units and 52 reports from 30 control units (mean number of reports per unit ± standard deviation: 1.0 ± 2.5 vs. 0.7 ± 1.2, P = 0.34). The number of high quality reports was higher in intervention units than in control units (37 vs. 15 reports, 0.5 ± 0.9 vs. 0.2 ± 0.6, P = 0.048). According to the returned questionnaires (n = 1,292, response rate 57%), more persons in the intervention than in the control group had received (29% vs. 19%, P < 0.0001) and read (31% vs. 26%, P < 0.0001) an ADR information letter.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study suggests that repeated ADR information letters to physicians and nurses do not increase the ADR reporting rate, but may increase the number of high quality reports.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9196,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Clinical Pharmacology\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"14\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-09-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1472-6904-11-14\",\"citationCount\":\"31\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Clinical Pharmacology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6904-11-14\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Clinical Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6904-11-14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 31

摘要

背景:药物不良反应(adr)的自发报告是药物警戒的重要方法,但报告少报和报告质量差是主要限制。本研究的目的是评估重复的单页ADR信息信是否影响(i) ADR报告率和(ii) ADR报告质量。方法:瑞典Västra Götaland地区的所有151个初级卫生保健单位被随机(1:1)分配到干预组(n = 77)或对照组(n = 74)。干预包括一页的ADR信息信,在2008年对干预单位的所有医生和护士进行了三次管理。从151个单位收到的ADR报告的数量和报告的质量都进行了登记,如果根据瑞典法规报告ADR,即ADR (i)严重,(ii)意外,和/或(iii)与使用新药有关,并且未在产品特性摘要中标记为常见,则将其定义为高。进行问卷调查以评估ADR信息信是否已送达预定收件人。结果:干预前,随机分组间报告率和高质量报告数量无显著差异。2008年,37个干预单位共发送79份报告,30个对照单位共发送52份报告(平均单位报告数±标准差:1.0±2.5 vs. 0.7±1.2,P = 0.34)。干预组的高质量报告数量高于对照组(37份比15份,0.5±0.9比0.2±0.6,P = 0.048)。根据返回的问卷(n = 1292,回复率57%),干预组收到(29%对19%,P < 0.0001)和阅读(31%对26%,P < 0.0001) ADR信息函的人数多于对照组。结论:本研究提示,反复向医生和护士发送ADR信息函不会增加ADR报告率,但可能会增加高质量报告的数量。
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
Impact of information letters on the reporting rate of adverse drug reactions and the quality of the reports: a randomized controlled study.

Background: Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is an important method for pharmacovigilance, but under-reporting and poor quality of reports are major limitations. The aim of this study was to evaluate if repeated one-page ADR information letters affect (i) the reporting rate of ADRs and (ii) the quality of the ADR reports.

Methods: All 151 primary healthcare units in the Region Västra Götaland, Sweden, were randomly allocated (1:1) to an intervention (n = 77) or a control group (n = 74). The intervention consisted of one-page ADR information letters administered at three occasions during 2008 to all physicians and nurses in the intervention units. The number of ADR reports received from the 151 units was registered, as was the quality of the reports, which was defined as high if the ADR was to be reported according to Swedish regulations, that is, if the ADR was (i) serious, (ii) unexpected, and/or (iii) related to the use of new drugs and not labelled as common in the Summary of Product Characteristics. A questionnaire was administered to evaluate if the ADR information letter had reached the intended recipient.

Results: Before the intervention, no significant differences in reporting rate or number of high quality reports could be detected between the randomization groups. In 2008, 79 reports were sent from 37 intervention units and 52 reports from 30 control units (mean number of reports per unit ± standard deviation: 1.0 ± 2.5 vs. 0.7 ± 1.2, P = 0.34). The number of high quality reports was higher in intervention units than in control units (37 vs. 15 reports, 0.5 ± 0.9 vs. 0.2 ± 0.6, P = 0.048). According to the returned questionnaires (n = 1,292, response rate 57%), more persons in the intervention than in the control group had received (29% vs. 19%, P < 0.0001) and read (31% vs. 26%, P < 0.0001) an ADR information letter.

Conclusions: This study suggests that repeated ADR information letters to physicians and nurses do not increase the ADR reporting rate, but may increase the number of high quality reports.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Statin therapy in critical illness: an international survey of intensive care physicians' opinions, attitudes and practice. Correction: Adverse drug reactions to antiretroviral therapy (ARVs): incidence, type and risk factors in Nigeria Data for drugs available through low-cost prescription drug programs are available through pharmacy benefit manager and claims data. Population prevalence of high dose paracetamol in dispensed paracetamol/opioid prescription combinations: an observational study. Adherence to medication for the treatment of psychosis: rates and risk factors in an Ethiopian population.
×
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