↓ Skip to main content

Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting by patients in Canada: a multi-method study—study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
Title
Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting by patients in Canada: a multi-method study—study protocol
Published in
SpringerPlus, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-1838-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rania Al Dweik, Sanni Yaya, Dawn Stacey, Dafna Kohen

Abstract

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. 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. 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.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 76 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 14%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 5 6%
Other 19 25%
Unknown 19 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 22 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 12%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 22 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,313,158
of 22,854,458 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,459
of 1,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,303
of 297,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#133
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,849 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 297,592 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.