Barriers to the reporting of adverse drug reactions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Voluntary reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) by physicians and other healthcare professionals currently is the single most important source of information for early signal detection of ADRs. Despite the importance of ADR reporting, there is evidence that less than 10% of ADRs experienced by Canadians are reported to Health Canada and the factors contributing to this under-reporting are unclear. Objectives: The purpose of the present study was to ascertain the barriers to reporting ADRs, including knowledge; attitudes and beliefs; and the accessibility of the reporting system as the first step in understanding the problem of underreporting of ADRs. In addition, information was collected about physician engagement in a dialogue about ADRs with their patients, and whether their office practice was structured to allow patient follow-up of an ADR. Methods: An online survey was administered to BC physicians in the spring of 2008. The survey was designed to obtain information in the following areas: knowledge of and attitudes toward ADRs; patient dialogue about ADRs and structure of the clinical practice; access to the report form, knowledge about if and what needs to be reported and educational support required for ADR reporting and appropriate utilization of new medications. Results: Eighty-seven physicians completed the survey, a response rate of 2%. There is a 95% level of certainty that the quantitative results provided in this survey are within a sampling margin of error of plus or minus 10.5%. Descriptive statistics were calculated and responses to some questions were analyzed using cross-tabulation by whether the physician had ever reported an ADR. A difference of p<0.05 was considered significant. The majority viewed the reporting of ADRs as a professional responsibility, discussed ADRs with their patients and structured their office practice to permit follow-up with suspected ADRs. However, 70% percent had never reported an ADR. Gaps in knowledge about adverse drug reactions and the subsequent reporting process were revealed. Participants indicated the need for decision-making support at the time an ADR is suspected and feedback on the reports they submit. Conclusion: The responses of this small and highly motivated subset of physicians, indicate that difficulties in the actual mechanism of reporting ADRs, rather than negative physician attitudes as suggested in the literature, may be an important first barrier to reporting.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,097 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».