Feedback for patients reporting adverse drug reactions; satisfaction and expectations

被引:11
作者
Rolfes, Lean [1 ,2 ]
van Hunsel, Florence [1 ,2 ]
van Grootheest, Kees [1 ]
van Puijenbroek, Eugene [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Ctr Lareb, Shertogenbosch, Netherlands
[2] Univ Groningen, Dept Pharm Pharmacotherapy & Pharmaceut Care, Groningen, Netherlands
关键词
adverse drug reactions; feedback; patient reporting; pharmacovigilance;
D O I
10.1517/14740338.2015.1021775
中图分类号
R9 [药学];
学科分类号
1007 ;
摘要
Objective: Due to the rising number of patient reports in pharmacovigilance, the manner in which feedback is provided to patients is an element to be considered. The objective is to explore the satisfaction of patients towards personalized and general feedback in response to their reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Methods: Patients who reported an ADR to the Dutch Pharmacovigilance Centre for the first time in the period between October 2012 and April 2013 were included. Reporters received personalized feedback or a general acknowledgement letter. Satisfaction towards the received feedback, expressed on a 5-point Likert scale (1 very good to 5 very poor), was studied using a web-based questionnaire. Data were analyzed using Pearson Chi-square test and linear regression analysis. Statistical significance was based on p < 0.05. Results: A total of 471 patient-reporters were contacted with a total response of 52.5%. Respondents of both groups were satisfied with the received feedback, average score 2 (good). Respondents of the personalized feedback-group were however more satisfied score 2.0 versus 2.5 (p < 0.001) and considered the feedback more clear and useful compared with respondents of the acknowledgement letter-group, respectively score 1.6 versus 1.7 (p = 0.01) and score 2.1 versus 2.5 (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Patients reporting ADRs are satisfied with feedback received from the pharmacovigilance centre, whether this is a personalized feedback or a general acknowledgment letter. They find it clear, useful and it meets their expectation. Although differences were found between the two types of feedback, these differences did not indicate dissatisfaction towards the received feedback.
引用
收藏
页码:625 / 632
页数:8
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], EU PHARM SYST
[2]   Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Safety Event Reporting: PROSPER Consortium Guidance [J].
Banerjee, Anjan K. ;
Okun, Sally ;
Edwards, I. Ralph ;
Wicks, Paul ;
Smith, Meredith Y. ;
Mayall, Stephen J. ;
Flamion, Bruno ;
Cleeland, Charles ;
Basch, Ethan .
DRUG SAFETY, 2013, 36 (12) :1129-1149
[3]  
CIOMS Working Groups V, 2001, CURR CHALL PHARM PRA, P99
[4]   The qualitative content analysis process [J].
Elo, Satu ;
Kyngaes, Helvi .
JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, 2008, 62 (01) :107-115
[5]  
Grootheest A., 2002, The Journal of pharmacy practice, V10, P267, DOI DOI 10.1211/096176702776868460
[6]   Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting by Patients: An Overview of Fifty Countries [J].
Margraff, Florence ;
Bertram, Delphine .
DRUG SAFETY, 2014, 37 (06) :409-419
[7]  
MCLERNON DJ, 2011, DRUG SAFETY, V20, P523
[8]  
Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, 2012, LAR ANN REP 2012
[9]  
Netherlands pharmacovigilance centre Lareb, 2003, LAR ANN REP 2003
[10]  
Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb, 2010, LAR ANN REP 2010