Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Factors that Influence Under-Reporting of Suspected Adverse Drug Reactions among Community Pharmacists in a Spanish Region

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: The spontaneous reporting system is the most efficient warning system of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Pharmacists can play an important role in the detection and reporting of ADRs. The factors that affect under-reporting among these professionals are unknown in Spain.

Objective: To identify the factors that influence community pharmacists’ ADR under-reporting in Navarra, a Northern Spanish region.

Methods: A case-control study was conducted on a population of 802 community pharmacists working in Navarra. Cases were pharmacists who had reported at least two ADRs to the region’s drug surveillance unit between 2003 and 2005 and who agreed to participate in the study (18/20; 90%). A random sample of 60 controls was selected from the 762 pharmacists who had not reported any ADR during the same period of time.

Results: Factors positively associated with ADR reporting were age, years of work experience as a pharmacist, participation in educational activities related to the detection and resolution of drug-related problems, the habit of detecting ADRs as part of pharmacists’ duties, having the basic knowledge needed to report ADRs, and disagreement with the common belief among healthcare professionals that ’to report an ADR it is necessary to be sure that the reaction is related to the use of a particular drug’. The most frequently mentioned reasons for not reporting ADRs were the ADR is not serious, the ADR is already known, uncertainty concerning the causal relationship between the ADR and the drug, forgetting to report the ADR and a lack of time.

Conclusions: Pharmacists’ knowledge, beliefs, behaviour and motivation play an important role in ADR reporting. Under-reporting might be improved through activities focused on modifying such factors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Fig. 1
Table III

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalised patients. JAMA 1998; 279: 1200–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. BMJ 2004; 3; 329: 15–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. World Health Organization. Safety of medicines. A guide to detecting and reporting adverse drug reactions [online]. Available from URL: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2002/WHO_EDM_QSM_2002.2.pdf [Accessed 2006 Apr 20]

  4. Rawlins MD. Pharmacovigilance: paradise lost, regained or postponed? J R Coll Physicians Lond 1995; 29: 41–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hazell L, Shakir SAW. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Saf 2006; 29(5): 385–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Real Decreto 711/2002, de 19 de Julio, por el que se regula la farmacovigilancia de medicamentos de uso humano (BOE 20 Julio 2002). “Royal Decree 711/2002, of 19 July 2002, regulating pharmacovigilance of medicinal products for human use”

  7. Van Grootheest K, Olsson S, Couper M, et al. Pharmacists’ role in reporting adverse drug reactions in an international perspec-tive. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2004; 13: 457–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sinclair HK, Bond CM, Hannaford PC. Pharmacovigilance of over-the-counter products based in community pharmacy: a feasible option? Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1999; 8: 479–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Barnes J. Pharmacovigilance of herbal medicines: a UK perspective. Drug Saf 2003; 26: 829–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ahmad SR, Freiman JP, Graham DJ, et al. Quality of adverse drug experience reports submitted by pharmacists and physicians to the FDA. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1996; 5: 1–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Roberts PI, Wolfson DJ, Booth TG. The role of pharmacists in adverse drug reaction reporting. Drug Saf 1994; 11: 7–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Beard K. Introduction. In: Lee A, editors. Adverse drug reactions. London: Pharmaceutical Press, 2001: 1

    Google Scholar 

  13. Emerson A, Martin RM, Tomlin M, et al. Prospective cohort study of adverse events monitored by hospital pharmacists. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2001; 10: 95–103

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Green CF, Mottram DR, Raval D, et al. Community pharmacists’ attitudes to adverse drug reaction reporting. Int J Pharm Pract 1999; 7: 92–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sweis D, Wong ICK. A survey on factors that could affect adverse drug reaction reporting according to hospital pharmacists in Great Britain. Drug Saf 2000; 23: 165–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Green FG, Mottram DR, Rowe PH, et al. Attitudes and knowledge of hospital pharmacists to adverse drug reaction reporting. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 51: 81–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gedde-Dahl A, Harg P, Stenberg-Nilsen H, et al. Characteristics and quality of adverse drug reaction reports by pharmacists in Norway. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. In Press

  18. Van Grootheest AC, Van Puijenbroek EP, Jong-van den Berg LTW. Contribution of pharmacists to the reporting of adverse drug reactions. Pharmacoepeidemiol Drug Saf 2002; 11: 205–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rogers AS, Israel E, Smith CR, et al. Physician knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour related to reporting adverse drug events. Arch Intern Med 1988; 148: 1596–600

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Figueiras A, Tato F, Fontainas J, et al. Influence of physicians’ attitudes on reporting adverse drug events. Med Care 1999; 37: 809–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bateman DN, Sanders GLS, Rawlins MD. Attitudes to adverse drug reaction reporting in the Northern Region. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1992; 34: 421–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Belton KJ, Lewis SC, Payne S, et al. Attitudinal survey of adverse drug reaction reporting by medical practitioners in the United Kingdom. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1995; 39: 223–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Belton KJ. Attitude survey of adverse drug-reaction reporting by health care professionals across the European Union. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 52: 423–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A, Polónia J, et al. Physicians’ attitudes and adverse drug reaction reporting: a case-control study in Portugal. Drug Saf 2005; 28(9): 825–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Leiper JM, Lawson DH. Why do doctors not report adverse drug reactions? Neth J Med 1985; 28(12): 546–50

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Torello Iserte J, Castillo Ferrando JR, Laínez MM, et al. Reacciones adversas a medicamentos notificadas por los médicos de atención primaria de Andalucia. Análisis de la infranotificacion. Aten Primaria 1994; 13(6): 307–11

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Serrano Cózar G, Esteban Calvo C, Gijón Porta JA, et al. Reacciones adversas a medicamentos y programa de notificatión espontanea: una encuesta de opinión a médicos de atención primaria. Aten Primaria 1997; 87: 780–4

    Google Scholar 

  28. Eland IA, Belton KJ, Van Grootheest AC, et al. Attitudinal survey of voluntary reporting of adverse drug reactions. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 48: 623–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Figueiras A, Tato F, Fontaiñas J, et al. Physicians’ attitudes towards voluntary reporting of adverse drug events. J Eval Clin Pract 2001;7: 347–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Hasford J, Goettler M, Munter KH, et al. Physicians’ knowledge and attitudes regarding the spontaneous reporting system for adverse drug reactions. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 945–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Aziz Z, Siaug TC, Badarudin NS. Reporting of adverse drug reactions: predictors of under-reporting in Malaysia. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007; 16: 223–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Generali JA, Danish MA, Rosenbaum SE. Knowledge of and attitudes about adverse drug reaction reporting among Rhode Island pharmacists. Ann Pharmacother 1995; 29: 365–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Van Grootheest AC, Mes K, Jong-van den Berg LTW. Attitudes of community pharmacists in the Netherlands towards ADR reporting. Int J Pharm Pract 2002; 10: 267–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A, Polonia J, et al. Influence of pharmacists’ attitudes on adverse drug reaction reporting: a case-control study in Portugal. Drug Saf 2006; 29(4): 331–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Houghton J, Woods F, Davis S, et al. Community pharmacist reporting of suspected ADRs: attitudes of community pharmacists and general practitioners in Wales. Pharm J 1999; 263: 788–91

    Google Scholar 

  36. Herdeiro MT, Polonia J, Gestal-Otero JJ, et al. Factors that influence spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions: a model centralized in the medical professional. J Eval Clin Pract 2004; 10: 483–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Inman WHW. Assessment drug safety problems. In: Gent M, Shigmatsu I, editors. Epidemiological issues in reported drug-induced illnesses. Honolulu (ON): McMaster University Library Press, 1976: 17–24

    Google Scholar 

  38. Inman WHW. Attitudes to adverse drug reaction reporting. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1996; 41: 434–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Granas AG, Buajordet M, Stenberg-Nilsen H, et al. Pharmacists’ attitudes towards the reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions in Norway. Pharmacoepeidemiol Drug Saf 2007; 16: 129–34

    Google Scholar 

  40. Figueiras A, Herdeiro MT, Polonia J, et al. An educational intervention to improve physician reporting of adverse drug reactions: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2006; 296: 1086–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Navarra, C/Irunlarrea no 1, 31008, Pamplona, Spain

    Marta Irujo, Guadalupe Beitia &  Berta Lasheras

  2. Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain

    Maira Bes-Rastrollo

  3. Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

    Adolfo Figueiras

  4. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Sonia Hernández-Diaz

Authors
  1. Marta Irujo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guadalupe Beitia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maira Bes-Rastrollo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Adolfo Figueiras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sonia Hernández-Diaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Berta Lasheras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Berta Lasheras.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Irujo, M., Beitia, G., Bes-Rastrollo, M. et al. Factors that Influence Under-Reporting of Suspected Adverse Drug Reactions among Community Pharmacists in a Spanish Region. Drug-Safety 30, 1073–1082 (2007). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200730110-00006

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200730110-00006

Keywords

Search

Navigation