Drug Safety 2007; 30 (10): 919-990
A BSTRACTS 0114-5916/07/0010-0919/$44.95/0
© 2007 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved.
Poster Presentations
P.043 Knowledge and Attitude of General Practitioners towards Reporting Adverse Drug Reactions
E.P. van Puijenbroek,1 M. ten Napel,2 J.L.M. Passier,1 A.C. van Grootheest1
1 Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb,
‘s-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands; 2 Hogeschool Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Background: Pharmacovigilance centres rely for their information on the willingness of health professionals and patients to share their concerns about possible adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in daily practice. The Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb receives an average number of 6000 reports on an annual basis. Over the past five years the number of reports from pharmacists and patients increased, whereas the number of reports from general practitioners (GPs) showed a slight but steady de- crease. This decrease may have been caused by a change in the knowledge, attitude or behaviour towards reporting ADRs of the GPs involved.
Objective/aim: The aim of this study was to gain insight in knowledge and attitude of GPs to report to the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb.
Methods: Reports from general practitioners between January 1st 2001 and January 2006 from GPs were analysed retrospectively. Three study groups were formed, consisting of GPs that have never reported to Lareb, those who reported in 2005 or 2006 and finally GP’s who have been reporting in 2001 till 2004 but did not report during the last two years. The study consisted of an analysis of the characteristics of the reporting GPs in the database of the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre, combined with a questionnaire survey. In every group 500 GPs were randomly selected and contacted.
Results: In the study period, the number of reports by GPs and the number of reporting GPs decreased. Analysis of the database showed a shift towards reporting of serious reports, thereby reducing the amount of non- serious reports and the frequency of reporting. The majority of the GPs had good knowledge about the procedures for reporting ADRs. GPs reporting to Lareb generally were more interested in pharmacotherapy, felt that the knowledge of ADRs at the time of marketing was limited and reporting ADRs contributed to the knowledge about drugs. There was no difference between the groups in respect to their knowledge about the absence of possible juridical consequences of reporting ADRs and safeguarding the anonymity of the reporters by Lareb. Of the GPs reporting to Lareb 34%
considered reporting rather time-consuming.
Conclusion: The knowledge about how to report an ADRs among GPs is good. Reporting GPs are generally more interested in pharmacotherapy.
Efforts for increasing the amount of reports from GPs should therefore aim at individual feedback on the reported ADRs and to limit the time needed for reporting ADRs.
