Search

Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is an important source of information for post-marketing drug safety evaluation. Most countries have public access to reporting systems, but patients report only 3% of all ADRs. Little is known about factors affecting patient reporting. Our aim was to explore patients’ experiences reporting ADRs and their views on the usability of the Canadian Vigilance reporting forms on MedEffect. An interpretive description qualitative study was used. Adults in Canada, who experienced an ADR, were invited to participate through social media (Kijiji, Facebook, Twitter) and by associations (e.g., Patients Canada or Canadian Arthritis Society). Participants were interviewed in English and French using structured interview guides. Inductive content analysis was used. Fifteen interviews were conducted from October 2014 to May 2015. Two participants reported ADRs to MedEffect, and others to physicians and/or pharmacists. Motives for reporting were intolerable side effect impacting daily activities and encouragement from others to report (e.g., family, colleagues). Factors that interfered with reporting were physicians normalized or minimized the side effect, confusion on what to report, no feedback after report submission to MedEffect, and previous experience with side effects. MedEffect forms were described as comprehensive and important, but its usability was affected by the number of questions and complexity of some questions. Most participants were unaware of MedEffect and reported ADRs to physicians and pharmacists. Several barriers and motives affected patients’ reporting of ADRs. MedEffect form could be simplified for use by patients.

BACKGROUND: Five cycles of data from the Canadian National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (1994/5–2002/3) were used to examine patterns of child care use in Quebec and the rest of Canada to explore the impact of Quebec’s implementation of universal child care. METHODS: Rates of overall use as well as use of regulated (child care centre, family child care) and non-regulated care (sitter, nanny, relative, family child care) were examined for preschoolers aged 0–5 years in Quebec as compared to the other provinces and by family household income. Chi-square tests were used to examine significance of differences. RESULTS: Since the implementation of Quebec’s child care program, Quebec demonstrated substantial increases in child care use, particularly in the use of regulated care (from 10% prior to program compared to 30% by 2002) whereas the use of unregulated care did not demonstrate a significant increase in Quebec as compared to the other provinces (1994 to 2002). Furthermore, the use of regulated care by low-income families was greater in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada, although the greatest increase in use of regulated care was for children from high-income families. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that since the introduction of Quebec’s universal child care program, there was an increase in the use of regulated child care for families of preschoolaged children in the province, although by 2002 Quebec had not achieved the coverage of universal child care programs attained by many European countries.