Home  |  About us  |  Editorial board  |  Ahead of print  | Current issue  |  Archives  |  Submit article  |  Instructions |  Search  |   Subscribe  |  Advertise  |  Contacts  |  Login 
  Users Online: 605Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  

 Table of Contents      
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 115-120

Assessing knowledge, attitude, and practices of health-care providers toward pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction reporting at a comprehensive cancer center in Jordan


Department of Pharmacy, Center for Drug Policy and Technology Assessment, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman, Jordan

Date of Web Publication12-Jul-2019

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Abeer Ahmad Al Rabayah
Department of Pharmacy, King Hussein Cancer Center, Queen Rania Street Next to The University of Jordan, P. O. Box 1269, Amman 11941
Jordan
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/picr.PICR_4_18

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

Background and Objective: Cancer patients are more likely to experience adverse drug reactions (ADRs) than other patients, because of both the complexity of the treatment regimens and the severity of disease. The objectives of this study were to determine the knowledge, attitude, and practice of health-care providers toward pharmacovigilance and ADR reporting, barriers to ADR reporting, and the association between the demographics of health-care providers and their knowledge and attitude toward reporting.
Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted at the King Hussein Cancer Center. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to dispensary pharmacists, clinical pharmacists, physicians, and nurses. Descriptive analysis was used, with testing for associations between variables.
Results: Of the 373 questionnaires, 306 were returned (response rate, 82%). Pharmacists and nurses were more knowledgeable than physicians; however, all participants had a highly positive attitude toward pharmacovigilance and ADR reporting, with a mean score of 3.87 out of 5. The main knowledge gaps were filling in an ADR reporting form, assessing the severity of ADRs, and differentiating between ADRs and adverse events. The main barriers to ADR reporting (37.5% of responses) were considered to be lack of training and of understanding reporting rules. No associations were found with age, gender, years of experience, attitude, or knowledge.
Conclusion and Recommendations: Understanding of pharmacovigilance and ADR reporting could further be improved among health-care providers at our center.

Keywords: Adverse drug reaction reporting, cancer, Jordan, knowledge, pharmacovigilance


How to cite this article:
Al Rabayah AA, Hanoun EM, Al Rumman RH. Assessing knowledge, attitude, and practices of health-care providers toward pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction reporting at a comprehensive cancer center in Jordan. Perspect Clin Res 2019;10:115-20

How to cite this URL:
Al Rabayah AA, Hanoun EM, Al Rumman RH. Assessing knowledge, attitude, and practices of health-care providers toward pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction reporting at a comprehensive cancer center in Jordan. Perspect Clin Res [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Aug 25];10:115-20. Available from: http://www.picronline.org/text.asp?2019/10/3/115/257236


   Introduction Top


Pharmacovigilance is an essential area of public health, involving the detection, assessment, understanding, and prevention of adverse reactions to drugs and medication-related problems.[1] Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are defined as any unintended noxious response to a drug that occurs at doses used normally in humans for prophylaxis, diagnosis, or therapy or to modify physiological function.[1]

Early detection of ADRs can prevent serious clinical outcomes, reduce the associated economic burden, and improve the public safety by signal detection and regulatory actions. Pharmacovigilance systems in hospitals provide essential information about medication use. They establish processes for using reported ADRs to modify, update, or develop therapeutic guidelines, develop risk management plans, and identify educational gaps regarding the use of medicines.

A number of studies have assessed the knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) of health-care providers toward pharmacovigilance and ADR reporting. The results vary widely according to the geographical region, type of health-care system, and health-care providers involved.

Limited studies have been conducted in Arabic countries.[2],[3],[4] The previous Jordanian KAP study involved community pharmacists and some hospital pharmacists, but not physicians or nurses.[3] Furthermore, previous studies did not compare knowledge, attitude, and practice toward ADR reporting among different types of health-care providers. This is considered a limitation for the usefulness of previous KAP study results.

The King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC) is a leading cancer center in the Middle East, providing adult and pediatric patients with state-of-the-art and comprehensive care for all types of cancer. The Center for Drug Policy and Technology Assessment in the pharmacy department analyzes reported ADRs and submits reports to the hospital pharmacy and therapeutic committee and to the pharmacovigilance center at the Jordanian Food and Drug Administration.

At KHCC, a mean of 600 ADRs are reported per year, only by clinical pharmacists and not by nurses, dispensary pharmacists, or physicians. We aimed to assess the KAP toward pharmacovigilance and ADR reporting of nonreporters at KHCC and to identify the barriers to ADR reporting according to each type of health-care providers.


   Materials and Methods Top


A cross-sectional survey was carried out among dispensary pharmacists, clinical pharmacists, physicians, and nurses at KHCC between May 2014 and December 2015. The questionnaire comprised 27 questions, and the content validity was assessed in a pilot study among 10 health-care providers at KHCC. The study team distributed the questionnaire in the various departments of KHCC, explained the purpose of the study, and gave participants 20 min to fill in the questionnaire and return it.

A 5-point Likert scale was used to measure attitude, and a scoring rule was used to assess knowledge and attitudes. Participants were classified as unknowledgeable if their mean total knowledge score was <0.2, poorly knowledgeable with a score of 0.21–0.40, fairly knowledgeable with a score of 0.41–0.60, intermediately knowledgeable with a mean score of 0.61–0.80, and highly knowledgeable with a score above 0.80.

Participants were classified as having a negative attitude toward pharmacovigilance and ADR reporting if they had a total mean attitude score of <2.33, a positive attitude with a score of 2.33–3.66, and a highly positive attitude with a score above 3.66.

The practice was assessed by determining the weekly mean ADR reporting rate. The questionnaire also included a question about barriers to ADR reporting. The last part of the questionnaire had an open-ended question to collect suggestions from participants to improve ADR reporting at KHCC.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed with SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC, USA). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Categorical data were analyzed with a Chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests. All statistical tests were conducted with a two-tailed alpha of 0.05.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was granted by the Institutional Review Board, KHCC.


   Results Top


Of 372 questionnaires, 306 were returned, for a response rate of 82%. Of the 282 health-care specialists who responded, 154 (50.32%) were nurses, 98 (32%) were physicians, 15 (4.8%) were dispensary pharmacists (4.8%), and 15 were clinical pharmacists. Almost half of the respondents were men (151; 49.34%). The median age of respondents was 28 years, and most had from 1 to 3 or from 5 to 10 years of experience [Table 1].
Table 1: Demographic characteristic of respondents

Click here to view


Knowledge and attitude

Respondents had intermediate knowledge about pharmacovigilance and ADR reporting, with a mean overall knowledge score of 0.66; pharmacist and nurses were considered intermediary knowledgeable. The nurses' mean knowledge score was 0.73, while the combined score of clinical pharmacists and dispensary pharmacists was 0.62. Clinical pharmacists had the highest knowledge mean score among all health-care providers in the study, with a score of 0.82. Dispensary pharmacists and physicians were considered fairly knowledgeable, with mean knowledge scores of 0.43 and 0.56, respectively.

In the total study population, the knowledge scores for filling in an ADR reporting form, assessing the severity of the ADR, and distinguishing between ADR and adverse events were the lowest [Table 2].
Table 2: Responses to questions about knowledge

Click here to view


The measure of attitude showed that 64.4% of health-care providers strongly agreed that ADR reporting is necessary for improving clinical practice; 48.4% strongly agreed with the statement that a database of ADR reports can be used for research; 43.5% agreed that pharmacovigilance should be taught at universities; and 42.5% agreed that reporting is necessary even of well-recognized ADRs [Table 3].
Table 3: Responses to attitude questions

Click here to view


In general, health-care providers at KHCC had a highly positive attitude toward ADR reporting, with a mean score of 3.87; clinical pharmacists scored 4.19, dispensary pharmacists scored 3.9, nurses scored 3.81, and physicians scored 3.92.

The results showed no association between knowledge of ADR reporting and attitude toward reporting (P = 0.2913), gender (P = 0.826), years of experience (P = 0.314), or age (P = 0.7639); however, a significant association was detected between knowledge and profession (P = 0) and between knowledge and participant's service (P = 0). No association was detected between attitude and demographic variables.

Practice

In term of practice, 41% of the participants detected at least one ADR per week; however, the mean actual weekly ADR reporting rate was 16%. Of the 306 respondents, 250 (81.7%) had not been trained in pharmacovigilance or ADR reporting. Only 55 (18%) respondents always documented reported ADRs in patients' medical records, while 20 (6.5%) mostly, 40 (13.1%) sometimes, 65 (21.2%) rarely, and 57 (18.6%) never documented ADRs.

Reporting barriers

[Table 4] shows the barriers to ADR reporting by health-care providers. Lack of time, difficulty in deciding whether an ADR had occurred, and lack of feedback about previously reported ADRs were the major barriers for pharmacists, while lack of training, lack of time, and not knowing the reporting rules were the main barriers for physicians and nurses.
Table 4: Barriers to adverse drug reaction reporting among health-care providers

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


The level of knowledge of ADR reporting was considered intermediate, which is better than in other countries.[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12] Nevertheless, our health-care providers had positive attitude toward ADR reporting, as in previous studies.[13],[14]

The level of knowledge about pharmacovigilance and ADR reporting among physicians was lower than that among nurses and pharmacists, as observed in other studies.[9],[14] Pharmacists had intermediate knowledge about pharmacovigilance, although this might be as underestimate because of the inclusion of dispensary pharmacists, who usually do not report ADRs. Nevertheless, the score of pharmacists was better than those reported previously in Iran, India, Nigeria, and Turkey[11],[12],[15],[16],[17] and similar to these of hospital pharmacists in China.[18]

We found a low rate of ADR reporting (16%); however, it was within the range reported in other studies (3%–25%).[5],[6],[11],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24]

The most common barriers to ADR reporting were not knowing the reporting rules (37.58%), lack of training (37.58%), and lack of time (30.71%). Lethargy, insecurity, unawareness of reporting rules, and lack of training have been reported as major barriers to ADR reporting in studies in many countries.[6],[13],[17],[25],[26],[27],[28]

As in our study, pharmacists in Iran and China considered doubt about causality, one of the main barriers to ADR reporting,[12],[18] while unawareness of the ADR reporting procedure was the most common barrier among physicians and nurses.[4],[14],[23] In a previous study in Jordan,[3] lack of adequate information about the case and of ADR forms, not knowing how to report, and lack of awareness of the national ADR reporting system were the major determinants of underreporting among pharmacists. The difference from our results may be due to the different settings of the two studies.

Few respondents (8.5%) had been trained in pharmacovigilance or ADR reporting. Variable results have been found regarding the impact of training on ADR reporting. Arici et al. showed that training may improve knowledge about pharmacovigilance significantly in the short term, but failed in the long term. Other studies showed that health-care providers trained in pharmacovigilance had more knowledge and practice of pharmacovigilance (P = 0.001).[28],[29],[30]

In our study, 80.4% agreed that pharmacovigilance should be taught in detail to health-care providers, and most participants suggested that training and education are required to improve ADR reporting at the center. Similar suggestions have been made in other studies.[14],[18]

We found no difference in knowledge or attitude between males and females or by age group. Similar results were reported for nurses in a teaching hospital in Ajman.[4]

We found significant associations between knowledge and profession (P = 0) and hospital service (P = 0). Although we did not measure the impact of the demographic variables on ADR reporting, a KAP study in Nigeria showed significant associations (P < 0.05) between previous areas of practice, the respondents' academic qualifications, years of experience, and ADR reporting.[24] These results suggest that improvement of ADR reporting requires customized interventions according to profession and the area of practice of health-care providers, although our study showed no association between attitude and demographic variables.

Our study had some limitations. First, the results are not considered to be generalizable to other settings. Second, the small number of pharmacists (15 dispensary pharmacists and 15 clinical pharmacists) might have impacted the combined pharmacist scores. We found a relatively high difference in the mean knowledge score between clinical pharmacists (0.82) and dispensary pharmacists (0.43). Nevertheless, this finding is consistent with the reporting trend at our center. Clinical pharmacists, who had the highest knowledge score, are the only ones who report ADRs at our center. This finding suggests that knowledge has a role in improving ADR reporting, as found in previous studies.[4] Therefore, innovative strategies are required, in addition to training and education, for consistent improvement in knowledge about pharmacovigilance to improve ADR reporting. Further testing of the relationship between knowledge improvement and real-life ADR reporting is warranted. Our study showed no association between knowledge of ADR reporting and attitude toward reporting; therefore, improving attitude toward ADR reporting is not expected to improve knowledge scores.


   Conclusion and Recommendations Top


Knowledge of pharmacovigilance could further be improved at our center. The results of this study will be used to develop a comprehensive pharmacovigilance campaign at our institution, with multiple strategies, including promotion of reporting rules (what, when, and how to report), customized training for each medical specialty, and facilitation of reporting through electronic means.

Pharmacovigilance systems are essential, and training of health-care providers is a core component. Promotion and the use of technology are necessary to sustain the benefits of training. Further research will be required to assess the impact of the adopted strategies on ADR reporting rate and the quality of the reports.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
World Health Organization. The Safety of Medicines in Public Health Programmes: Pharmacovigilance an Essential Tool. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Alshammari TM, Alamri KK, Ghawa YA, Alohali NF, Abualkol SA, Aljadhey HS, et al. Knowledge and attitude of health-care professionals in hospitals towards pharmacovigilance in Saudi Arabia. Int J Clin Pharm 2015;37:1104-10.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Suyagh M, Farah D, Abu Farha R. Pharmacist's knowledge, practice and attitudes toward pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reactions reporting process. Saudi Pharm J 2015;23:147-53.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
John LJ, Arifulla M, Cheriathu JJ, Sreedharan J. Reporting of adverse drug reactions: An exploratory study among nurses in a teaching hospital, Ajman, United Arab emirates. Daru 2012;20:44.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Granas AG, Buajordet M, Stenberg-Nilsen H, Harg P, Horn AM. Pharmacists' attitudes towards the reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions in Norway. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007;16:429-34.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Khan SA, Goyal C, Tonpay SD. A study of knowledge, attitudes, and practice of dental doctors about adverse drug reaction reporting in a teaching hospital in India. Perspect Clin Res 2015;6:144-9.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
7.
Peymani P, Tabrizi R, Afifi S, Namazi S, Heydari ST, Shirazi MK, et al. Knowledge, attitude and practice of general practitioners towards adverse drug reaction reporting in South of Iran, Shiraz (Pharmacoepidemiology report). Int J Risk Saf Med 2016;28:25-31.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Santosh KC, Tragulpiankit P, Edwards IR, Gorsanan S. Knowledge about adverse drug reactions reporting among healthcare professionals in nepal. Int J Risk Saf Med 2013;25:1-6.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Agarwal R, Daher AM, Mohd Ismail N. Knowledge, practices and attitudes towards adverse drug reaction reporting by private practitioners from Klang Valley in Malaysia. Malays J Med Sci 2013;20:52-61.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Pérez García M, Figueras A. The lack of knowledge about the voluntary reporting system of adverse drug reactions as a major cause of underreporting: Direct survey among health professionals. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2011;20:1295-302.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Toklu HZ, Uysal MK. The knowledge and attitude of the Turkish community pharmacists toward pharmacovigilance in the Kadikoy district of Istanbul. Pharm World Sci 2008;30:556-62.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Vessal G, Mardani Z, Mollai M. Knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of pharmacists to adverse drug reaction reporting in Iran. Pharm World Sci 2009;31:183-7.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Datta S, Sengupta S. An evaluation of knowledge, attitude, and practice of adverse drug reaction reporting in a tertiary care teaching hospital of Sikkim. Perspect Clin Res 2015;6:200-6.  Back to cited text no. 13
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
14.
Sanghavi DR, Dhande PP, Pandit VA. Perception of pharmacovigilance among doctors in a tertiary care hospital: Influence of an interventional lecture. Int J Risk Saf Med 2013;25:197-204.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Afifi S, Maharloui N, Peymani P, Namazi S, Gharaei AG, Jahani P, et al. Adverse drug reactions reporting: Pharmacists' knowledge, attitude and practice in Shiraz, Iran. Int J Risk Saf Med 2014;26:139-45.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Ahmad A, Patel I, Balkrishnan R, Mohanta GP, Manna PK. An evaluation of knowledge, attitude and practice of indian pharmacists towards adverse drug reaction reporting: A pilot study. Perspect Clin Res 2013;4:204-10.  Back to cited text no. 16
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
17.
Oreagba IA, Ogunleye OJ, Olayemi SO. The knowledge, perceptions and practice of pharmacovigilance amongst community pharmacists in Lagos state, South West Nigeria. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2011;20:30-5.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Su C, Ji H, Su Y. Hospital pharmacists' knowledge and opinions regarding adverse drug reaction reporting in Northern China. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2010;19:217-22.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Gupta SK, Nayak RP, Shivaranjani R, Vidyarthi SK. A questionnaire study on the knowledge, attitude, and the practice of pharmacovigilance among the healthcare professionals in a teaching hospital in South India. Perspect Clin Res 2015;6:45-52.  Back to cited text no. 19
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
20.
Kharkar M, Bowalekar S. Knowledge, attitude and perception/practices (KAP) of medical practitioners in India towards adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting. Perspect Clin Res 2012;3:90-4.  Back to cited text no. 20
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
21.
Prakasam A, Nidamanuri A, Kumar S. Knowledge, perception and practice of pharmacovigilance among community pharmacists in South India. Pharm Pract (Granada) 2012;10:222-6.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Biagi C, Montanaro N, Buccellato E, Roberto G, Vaccheri A, Motola D, et al. Underreporting in pharmacovigilance: An intervention for Italian GPs (Emilia-romagna region). Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2013;69:237-44.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Desai CK, Iyer G, Panchal J, Shah S, Dikshit RK. An evaluation of knowledge, attitude, and practice of adverse drug reaction reporting among prescribers at a tertiary care hospital. Perspect Clin Res 2011;2:129-36.  Back to cited text no. 23
  [Full text]  
24.
Awodele O, Akinyede A, Adeyemi OA, Awodele DF. Pharmacovigilance amongst doctors in private hospitals in Lagos West Senatorial district, Nigeria. Int J Risk Saf Med 2011;23:217-26.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Khan SA, Goyal C, Chandel N, Rafi M. Knowledge, attitudes, and practice of doctors to adverse drug reaction reporting in a teaching hospital in India: An observational study. J Nat Sci Biol Med 2013;4:191-6.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Lopez-Gonzalez E, Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A. Determinants of under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: A systematic review. Drug Saf 2009;32:19-31.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Tandon VR, Mahajan V, Khajuria V, Gillani Z. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: A challenge for pharmacovigilance in India. Indian J Pharmacol 2015;47:65-71.  Back to cited text no. 27
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
28.
Osakwe A, Oreagba I, Adewunmi AJ, Adekoya A, Fajolu I. Impact of training on Nigerian healthcare professionals' knowledge and practice of pharmacovigilance. Int J Risk Saf Med 2013;25:219-27.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Arici MA, Gelal A, Demiral Y, Tuncok Y. Short and long-term impact of pharmacovigilance training on the pharmacovigilance knowledge of medical students. Indian J Pharmacol 2015;47:436-9.  Back to cited text no. 29
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
30.
Hajebi G, Mortazavi SA, Salamzadeh J, Zian A. A survey of knowledge, attitude and practice of nurses towards pharamacovigilance in Taleqani hospital. Iran J Pharm Res 2010;9:199-206.  Back to cited text no. 30
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
  
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
    Conclusion and R...
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed418    
    Printed26    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded86    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal