Display options
Share it on

Hosp Pharm. 2021 Dec;56(6):751-759. doi: 10.1177/0018578720957968. Epub 2020 Sep 18.

Assessment of Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Among Healthcare Professionals working in Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Healthcare Facilities in Ekiti State, South-West Nigeria.

Hospital pharmacy

Theophilus A Adegbuyi, Joseph O Fadare, Ebisola J Araromi, Abayomi O Sijuade, Iyanu Bankole, Ilesanmi K Fasuba, Rachel A Alabi

Affiliations

  1. Ekiti State University, Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria.
  2. Ekiti State University Teaching Hospital, Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria.
  3. Federal Teaching Hospital, Ido-Ekiti, Nigeria.

PMID: 34732934 PMCID: PMC8559034 DOI: 10.1177/0018578720957968

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) constitute a significant global healthcare challenge associated with increased morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs; however, there are concerns that ADRs are grossly under-reported by different categories of healthcare professionals (HCPs) in many countries. The main objective of this study was to assess the knowledge, attitude and practice of ADR reporting of HCPs working at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels of care in Ekiti State, Nigeria.

METHODOLOGY: This was a self-administered questionnaire-based study conducted among HCPs working in Ekiti State, South-west Nigeria. The questionnaire which was adapted from ones used in similar studies was reviewed for content validity by experts in the field. Healthcare professionals (medical doctors, pharmacists, nurses, community health extension workers, and other allied HCPs) working in the 3 tiers of healthcare participated in the study. The questionnaire consisted of sections on the demographics of respondents, their knowledge, attitude and practice of ADR reporting. Data analysis was done using SPSS (version 25) employing t test, ANOVA and chi-square as appropriate with

RESULTS: Three hundred HCPs comprising of nurses (112; 37.3%), physicians (75; 25.0%), pharmacists (53; 17.7%), community health extension workers (40; 13.3%) and others (20; 6.7%) completed the questionnaire with 166 (55.3%) of them working in tertiary healthcare facilities. Male respondents (6.3 ± 1.7;

CONCLUSION: There was significant variation in the knowledge of different categories of HCPs and facility levels about ADR reporting. Encouragingly, the overall attitude of respondents towards ADR reporting was positive. Based on the above, strategies are needed to build capacity of HCPs in the area of on adverse drug reaction and its' reporting.

© The Author(s) 2020.

Keywords: adverse drug reactions; attitude; healthcare professionals; knowledge; pharmacovigilance; practice

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

  1. Drug Saf. 2016 Dec;39(12):1239-1250 - PubMed
  2. Drug Saf. 2015 May;38(5):437-53 - PubMed
  3. Int J Risk Saf Med. 2013 Jan 1;25(1):1-16 - PubMed
  4. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008 May;17(5):517-22 - PubMed
  5. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2004 Jun;18(3):275-80 - PubMed
  6. Clin Drug Investig. 2018 Mar;38(3):211-218 - PubMed
  7. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Mar 01;16:27 - PubMed
  8. Therapie. 2014 Sep-Oct;69(5):395-400 - PubMed
  9. Curr Drug Saf. 2015;10(2):136-44 - PubMed
  10. Int J Risk Saf Med. 2013;25(4):219-27 - PubMed
  11. Curr Drug Saf. 2018;13(1):21-25 - PubMed
  12. Afr Health Sci. 2015 Dec;15(4):1308-17 - PubMed
  13. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 May;95(19):e3437 - PubMed
  14. Drug Saf. 2016 Sep;39(9):847-57 - PubMed
  15. Daru. 2012 Oct 04;20(1):44 - PubMed
  16. Chin Med J (Engl). 2004 Jun;117(6):856-61 - PubMed
  17. Drug Saf. 2008;31(6):515-24 - PubMed
  18. Int J Clin Pharm. 2015 Dec;37(6):1104-10 - PubMed
  19. Biomed Res Int. 2019 Nov 30;2019:8690546 - PubMed
  20. Hosp Pract (1995). 2017 Dec;45(5):238-245 - PubMed
  21. Hosp Pharm. 2018 Jun;53(3):177-187 - PubMed
  22. Hosp Pharm. 2021 Aug;56(4):384-391 - PubMed
  23. Perspect Clin Res. 2015 Jan-Mar;6(1):45-52 - PubMed
  24. PLoS One. 2016 Mar 24;11(3):e0152221 - PubMed
  25. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004 Jan;57(1):86-92 - PubMed
  26. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2008 Aug;64(8):743-52 - PubMed
  27. S Afr Med J. 2014 Feb;104(2):104-6 - PubMed
  28. Health SA. 2018 Nov 12;23:1064 - PubMed
  29. J Eval Clin Pract. 2017 Dec;23(6):1316-1321 - PubMed
  30. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2013 Dec;4(Suppl 1):S73-7 - PubMed
  31. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010 Feb;19(2):191-5 - PubMed
  32. Drug Saf. 2009;32(1):19-31 - PubMed
  33. Saudi Pharm J. 2018 May;26(4):453-461 - PubMed
  34. BMJ. 2004 Jul 3;329(7456):15-9 - PubMed
  35. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2020 Jan;29(1):1-8 - PubMed
  36. Curr Drug Saf. 2016;11(2):128-36 - PubMed
  37. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2008 Jun;1(3):211-7 - PubMed
  38. Int J Risk Saf Med. 2019;30(1):33-44 - PubMed
  39. JAMA. 1998 Apr 15;279(15):1200-5 - PubMed
  40. Cent Afr J Med. 2004 Nov-Dec;50(11-12):104-7 - PubMed
  41. Pharmacy (Basel). 2018 Mar 31;6(2): - PubMed
  42. PLoS One. 2016 Sep 13;11(9):e0162948 - PubMed
  43. Int J Clin Pharm. 2018 Aug;40(4):903-910 - PubMed
  44. Int J Clin Pharm. 2018 Aug;40(4):895-902 - PubMed
  45. Ann Afr Med. 2011 Jan-Mar;10(1):13-8 - PubMed
  46. BMC Clin Pharmacol. 2009 Aug 11;9:14 - PubMed
  47. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2019 Jan 25;10:2042098618816279 - PubMed
  48. Sao Paulo Med J. 2011 May;129(3):153-64 - PubMed
  49. Med Clin (Barc). 2020 Mar 13;154(5):178-184 - PubMed
  50. Perspect Clin Res. 2019 Jul-Sep;10(3):115-120 - PubMed

Publication Types