ATTITUDE SURVEY OF ADVERSE DRUG-REACTION REPORTING BY HEALTH-CARE PROFESSIONALS ACROSS THE EUROPEAN-UNION

Citation
Kj. Belton et al., ATTITUDE SURVEY OF ADVERSE DRUG-REACTION REPORTING BY HEALTH-CARE PROFESSIONALS ACROSS THE EUROPEAN-UNION, European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 52(6), 1997, pp. 423-427
Citations number
11
Categorie Soggetti
Pharmacology & Pharmacy
ISSN journal
00316970
Volume
52
Issue
6
Year of publication
1997
Pages
423 - 427
Database
ISI
SICI code
0031-6970(1997)52:6<423:ASOADR>2.0.ZU;2-8
Abstract
Objectives: This survey was conducted to assess the attitudes of medic al practitioners in the European Union regarding their national sponta neous reporting scheme, to identify reasons for under-reporting and to determine what steps might be effective in increasing reporting rates . National spontaneous reporting schemes rely on health care professio nals reporting individual cases of suspected ADRs to a central or regi onal agency. National schemes, however, vary considerably and reportin g rates and patterns differ between member states. Accumulating eviden ce suggests that doctors' attitudes to national ADR reporting schemes are significant determinants of reporting rates. Methods: A self-admin istered questionnaire and letter of invitation was sent to a random sa mple of approximately 1% of medical practitioners in each of nine EU m ember states (Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portug al, Spain, Sweden and the UK). One month later, a reminder letter and a second copy of the questionnaire was sent to the non-responders (exc ept Denmark and Italy). Results: Response rates, and the percentage of responders who stated that they had reported previously an ADR, varie d substantially between countries. Issues that appeared to discourage reporting included lack of availability of report forms; the address o r telephone number of the reporting agency; lack of information on how to report; and not having enough time to report. Issues which did not apparently discourage reporting included concern about patient confid entiality; fear of legal liability or appearing foolish; reluctance to admit that harm had been caused to a patient; and ambition to collect and publish a personal series of cases. Conclusions: The results of t his survey demonstrate some of the advantages and disadvantages of tra nsnational, multilingual studies of this type, but indicate that there is scope for the further development of such techniques and their use on a wider basis in the EU and elsewhere.