Jordanians' knowledge, attitude and practice regarding adverse drug reactions reporting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the general public knowledge, attitudes, and practice regarding Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) reporting and pharmacovigilance in Jordan. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted between July 16, 2022, and July 30, 2022, in Jordan. During the study period, an electronic survey consisting of 4 sections was administered to a convenience sample of Jordanians (aged 18 or above) using 2 social media platforms (Facebook and WhatsApp). Logistic regression analysis was used to screen the predictors of ADRs reporting by the participants. Results: A total of 441 participants completed the survey. The majority of the participants (67.6%) were females, 53.1% between 26 and 45 years old. Almost all participants (96.3%) were always aware of the indication of the medications they take, the time and frequency (87.8%), and the duration of medications (84.4%). Nearly one-third of the participants (37.4%) asked about their medications' ADRs. However, the drug information leaflet was the most frequently used source of ADR information (33.3%). The majority of responders believed that both healthcare providers and consumers should report ADRs (93.4% and 80.3%, respectively). Only one-quarter of respondents (27.2%) believed that consumers could directly report ADRs through the Jordan pharmacovigilance program. The majority of patients who had experienced ADRs (70.3%) were aware that ADRs should be reported, and among them, 91.9% had reported the ADRs to healthcare providers. Furthermore, few participants (8.1%) reported it to the Jordan National Pharmacovigilance Centre (JNCP). Linear regression revealed that none of the demographic characteristics (age, gender, education, job, and social status) were affecting public reporting practice of the ADRs (P > 0.05 for all). Conclusion: Respondents showed fair knowledge about adverse drug reactions and their reporting. However, there is a need to initiate educational activities and intervention programs to raise awareness about the JNPC, which will have a positive impact on public health and ensure safe medication use in Jordan.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".