Assessment of Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Among Healthcare Workers in Selected Health Facilities in Abuja
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : In recent years, deaths due to adverse drug reaction (ADR) have been on the increase. In order to reduce the untoward effects and to prevent deaths, reporting of ADR remains the cornerstone in improving patients safe use of drugs. Aim : This study aimed at assessing knowledge, attitude and practice of adverse drug reaction reporting amongst Medical Doctors, Pharmacists, and Nurses in selected health facilities within Abuja, Nigeria. Methods : A cross-sectional descriptive study was undertaken using questionnaire to assess knowledge attitude, and practice of reporting adverse drug reaction among the categories of healthcare workers included in the study. Results : The findings from the study showed that 99% of the study participants had knowledge about the standard definition of pharmacovigilance, majority of the study participants (58.7%) indicated that ADR reporting should be made mandatory, more than two third of the study participants (67%) had encountered cases of ADR in their practice, only a quarter of the participants (26%) had reported cases of adverse drug reaction. Conclusion: This study revealed that almost of the study participants were aware of ADR, they had sound knowledge and positive attitude towards ADR reporting but unfortunately the practice of reporting was low among healthcare professionals included for this study. Keywords: Pharmacovigilance, Adverse Drug Reaction, Knowledge, Attitude, Practice, Yellow Form DOI: 10.7176/JBAH/11-8-05 Publication date: April 30 th 2021
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".