Cargando…

Patients views and experiences in online reporting adverse drug reactions: findings of a national pilot study in Japan

BACKGROUND: Patients have been allowed to report adverse drug reactions (ADRs) directly to the government in some countries, which would contribute to pharmacovigilance. OBJECTIVE: We started a pilot study to determine whether web-based patient ADR reporting would work in Japan. This article aims to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yamamoto, Michiko, Kubota, Kiyoshi, Okazaki, Mitsuhiro, Dobashi, Akira, Hashiguchi, Masayuki, Doi, Hirohisa, Suka, Machi, Mochizuki, Mayumi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4315543/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25670886
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S75761
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Patients have been allowed to report adverse drug reactions (ADRs) directly to the government in some countries, which would contribute to pharmacovigilance. OBJECTIVE: We started a pilot study to determine whether web-based patient ADR reporting would work in Japan. This article aims to describe the characteristics of the patient reporters, and to clarify patient views and experiences of reporting. METHODS: Patients who submitted online ADR reports were contacted to respond to an ADR reporting questionnaire; only consenting reporters were included. Subjects with multiple responses were excluded from analysis. The questionnaire consisted of both closed and open questions. Questionnaire responses were examined using Pearson’s chi-squared test. RESULTS: A total of 220 web-based ADR reports were collected from January to December 2011; questionnaires were sent to 190 reporters, excluding those who gave multiple reports and those that refused to be contacted. Responses were obtained from 94 individuals (effective response rate: 49.5%). The median respondent age was 46.0 years. Sixty-three respondents found out about this pilot study on the Internet (67.0%). The numbers of respondents claiming that they had difficulty recalling the time/date of ADR occurrence were 16 patient reporters and three non-patient reporters. The number of reporters who found it difficult to complete the online reporting form was 22 patients (26.2%) and one non-patient (10%). Fifty-seven respondents (60.6%) expected feedback after reporting and many respondents wanted to know the process of ADR data collection and related information. Seventy-three respondents (77.7%) stated that they would report ADRs again in future. CONCLUSION: Throughout the entire questionnaire, online patient ADR reporting was received with a forward-looking, positive approach. To facilitate smoother web-based reporting experiences in future, some improvements may be required in online ADR reporting forms, particularly with regard to respondent feedback.