Knowledge, attitude and practice towards pharmacovigilance among ayurveda physicians and teachers of Gujarat State: A cross sectional study

AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice towards pharmacovigilance for Ayurveda among the teachers and practitioners working in Ayurveda colleges of Gujarat State. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey questionnaire with 29 questions covering points like participants’ knowledge, attitude and practice towards pharmacovigilance, adverse drug reaction reporting, and misleading advertisements related Ayurveda drugs was developed in Google form format. The study was carried out during December 2020 and January 2021. Question-wise analysis was made and their percentage value was calculated with the help of a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet in MS Office 2010. The result was presented using simple frequencies with percentages in appropriate tables. RESULTS: Results from this study show that majority of the respondents were having a good knowledge regarding the concept of pharmacovigilance and ADRs in terms of their definitions and purposes. But, a complete knowledge regarding the structure of present national and international pharmacovigilance programme, reporting the ADR and its format were still lacking among majority of the participants. An encouraging attitude towards reporting of adverse drug reaction of ASU&H drugs and teaching of Pharmacovigilance for all the healthcare professionals by majority of the participants was observed. Further maximum participants opine a mandatory rule for reporting of ADR by Physicians, Pharmacist and Nursing staff. A major part of respondents (78.03%) opine that poor quality of drug, medication errors, prescription errors, dispensing errors are part of Pharmacovigilance under drug-related problems. The observed positive attitude is not being reflected in term of practice i.e., reporting of ADR related to Ayurveda drugs. One-third of the participants reported their experience about adverse drug reactions during their professional practice, out of which very few have reported ADRs. Difficulty in deciding or identifying the ADR and lack of time to report ADR is one of the major factor discouraging the participants from reporting ADRs. A large number of respondents were also not familiar with reporting misleading advertisements. CONCLUSION: Findings of this study reflects a good knowledge of the participants about the concept of Pharmacovigilance but unfamiliarity about the programme. The positive attitude towards practice of Pharmacovigilance and ADR reporting can be converted to foster pharmacovigilance practice through series of awareness programmes.