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.

Aim The aim of the present study was to determine the barriers and motives influencing consumer reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Methods A systematic review, guided by the Cochrane Handbook, was conducted. Electronic searches included MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1964 to December 2014. Eligible studies addressed patients' perceptions and factors influencing ADR reporting. Studies about healthcare professional (HCP) reporting of ADRs were excluded. Studies were appraised for quality, and results were analysed descriptively. Results Of 1435 citations identified, 21 studies were eligible. Studies were primarily conducted in the UK, the Netherlands and Australia. The identified barriers to patient reporting of ADRs (n = 15 studies) included poor awareness, confusion about who should report the ADR, difficulties with reporting procedures, lack of feedback on submitted reports, mailing costs, ADRs resolved and prior negative reporting experiences. The identified motives for patients reporting ADRs (n = 10 studies) were: preventing others from having similar ADRs, wanting personal feedback, improving medication safety, informing regulatory agencies, improving HCP practices, responding to HCPs not reporting their ADRs and having been asked to report ADRs by HCPs. Conclusions Most patients were not aware of reporting systems and others were confused about reporting. Patients were mainly motivated to make their ADRs known to prevent similar suffering in other patients. By increasing patient familiarity and providing clear reporting processes, reporting systems could better achieve patient reporting of ADRs.

Background Monitoring adverse drug reactions (ADRs) through pharmacovigilance are vital to patient safety. Spontaneous ADR reporting is one method of pharmacovigilance, and in Canada all reporter types admitted to report an ADR to the Canadian Vigilance Program at Health Canada. Reports are submitted to Health Canada by post, telephone, or via the internet. The Canada Vigilance Program electronically records submitted information to detect medication safety alerts. Although previous studies have shown differences between patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) on the types of drugs and reactions reported, relatively little is known about the importance of patient reports to pharmacovigilance activities. This article proposed a multi-method approach to evaluate the importance of patient ADR reporting on pharmacovigilance activities, by systematically review the available literature, comparing patient—versus HCPs-generated ADR reports that were submitted to the Canada Vigilance Program, and exploring patient views and experiences regarding the Canadian ADR reporting system. Methods Guided by a risk-perception theoretical lens, the proposed multi-methods research study will involve three phases. Phase I is a systematic review of all studies that analyse the factors influence ADR reporting by patients to the pharmacovigilance schemes. Phase II is a descriptive statistical analysis of all ADR reports received by the Canada Vigilance Program database between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2014 from patients and HCPs to compare ADRs reported by patients with those reported by HCP reports in terms of ADR seriousness, ADR classification by system organ class, and the medication involved based on the anatomical therapeutic class system. In phase III, an interpretative descriptive approach will be used to explore patient’s views and experiences on ADR reporting and usability of the Canadian Vigilance ADR report. Participants will be purposefully selected to ensure diverse backgrounds and experiences. Interviews will be digitally-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and inductively analysed to identify themes. Patients will be interviewed until theoretical saturation is achieved. Discussion Findings from this research will highlight the role of the patients in directly reporting ADRs, and provide information that may guide streamline and optimizing patient ADR reporting. Policy makers, public health officials, and regulatory agencies will require this critical information in order to improve medication safety in Canada and worldwide.