Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2016 |
Outros Autores: | , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Revista de Saúde Pública |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-89102016000100212 |
Resumo: | ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To describe different approaches to promote adverse drug reaction reporting among health care professionals, determining their cost-effectiveness. METHODS We analyzed and compared several approaches taken by the Northern Pharmacovigilance Centre (Portugal) to promote adverse drug reaction reporting. Approaches were compared regarding the number and relevance of adverse drug reaction reports obtained and costs involved. Costs by report were estimated by adding the initial costs and the running costs of each intervention. These costs were divided by the number of reports obtained with each intervention, to assess its cost-effectiveness. RESULTS All the approaches seem to have increased the number of adverse drug reaction reports. We noted the biggest increase with protocols (321 reports, costing 1.96 € each), followed by first educational approach (265 reports, 20.31 €/report) and by the hyperlink approach (136 reports, 15.59 €/report). Regarding the severity of adverse drug reactions, protocols were the most efficient approach, costing 2.29 €/report, followed by hyperlinks (30.28 €/report, having no running costs). Concerning unexpected adverse drug reactions, the best result was obtained with protocols (5.12 €/report), followed by first educational approach (38.79 €/report). CONCLUSIONS We recommend implementing protocols in other pharmacovigilance centers. They seem to be the most efficient intervention, allowing receiving adverse drug reactions reports at lower costs. The increase applied not only to the total number of reports, but also to the severity, unexpectedness and high degree of causality attributed to the adverse drug reactions. Still, hyperlinks have the advantage of not involving running costs, showing the second best performance in cost per adverse drug reactions report. |
id |
USP-23_7d0eeac31c1675a36bfd5b1dfa78a50e |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S0034-89102016000100212 |
network_acronym_str |
USP-23 |
network_name_str |
Revista de Saúde Pública |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approachesDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsForms and Records ControlDrug MonitoringAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsPharmacovigilanceABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To describe different approaches to promote adverse drug reaction reporting among health care professionals, determining their cost-effectiveness. METHODS We analyzed and compared several approaches taken by the Northern Pharmacovigilance Centre (Portugal) to promote adverse drug reaction reporting. Approaches were compared regarding the number and relevance of adverse drug reaction reports obtained and costs involved. Costs by report were estimated by adding the initial costs and the running costs of each intervention. These costs were divided by the number of reports obtained with each intervention, to assess its cost-effectiveness. RESULTS All the approaches seem to have increased the number of adverse drug reaction reports. We noted the biggest increase with protocols (321 reports, costing 1.96 € each), followed by first educational approach (265 reports, 20.31 €/report) and by the hyperlink approach (136 reports, 15.59 €/report). Regarding the severity of adverse drug reactions, protocols were the most efficient approach, costing 2.29 €/report, followed by hyperlinks (30.28 €/report, having no running costs). Concerning unexpected adverse drug reactions, the best result was obtained with protocols (5.12 €/report), followed by first educational approach (38.79 €/report). CONCLUSIONS We recommend implementing protocols in other pharmacovigilance centers. They seem to be the most efficient intervention, allowing receiving adverse drug reactions reports at lower costs. The increase applied not only to the total number of reports, but also to the severity, unexpectedness and high degree of causality attributed to the adverse drug reactions. Still, hyperlinks have the advantage of not involving running costs, showing the second best performance in cost per adverse drug reactions report.Faculdade de Saúde Pública da Universidade de São Paulo2016-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-89102016000100212Revista de Saúde Pública v.50 2016reponame:Revista de Saúde Públicainstname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)instacron:USP10.1590/S1518-8787.2016050006122info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessRibeiro-Vaz,InêsSantos,Cristina CostaCruz-Correia,Ricardoeng2016-07-08T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0034-89102016000100212Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_serial&pid=0034-8910&lng=pt&nrm=isoONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phprevsp@org.usp.br||revsp1@usp.br1518-87870034-8910opendoar:2016-07-08T00:00Revista de Saúde Pública - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches |
title |
Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches |
spellingShingle |
Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches Ribeiro-Vaz,Inês Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions Forms and Records Control Drug Monitoring Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems Pharmacovigilance |
title_short |
Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches |
title_full |
Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches |
title_fullStr |
Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches |
title_full_unstemmed |
Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches |
title_sort |
Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches |
author |
Ribeiro-Vaz,Inês |
author_facet |
Ribeiro-Vaz,Inês Santos,Cristina Costa Cruz-Correia,Ricardo |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Santos,Cristina Costa Cruz-Correia,Ricardo |
author2_role |
author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Ribeiro-Vaz,Inês Santos,Cristina Costa Cruz-Correia,Ricardo |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions Forms and Records Control Drug Monitoring Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems Pharmacovigilance |
topic |
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions Forms and Records Control Drug Monitoring Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems Pharmacovigilance |
description |
ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE To describe different approaches to promote adverse drug reaction reporting among health care professionals, determining their cost-effectiveness. METHODS We analyzed and compared several approaches taken by the Northern Pharmacovigilance Centre (Portugal) to promote adverse drug reaction reporting. Approaches were compared regarding the number and relevance of adverse drug reaction reports obtained and costs involved. Costs by report were estimated by adding the initial costs and the running costs of each intervention. These costs were divided by the number of reports obtained with each intervention, to assess its cost-effectiveness. RESULTS All the approaches seem to have increased the number of adverse drug reaction reports. We noted the biggest increase with protocols (321 reports, costing 1.96 € each), followed by first educational approach (265 reports, 20.31 €/report) and by the hyperlink approach (136 reports, 15.59 €/report). Regarding the severity of adverse drug reactions, protocols were the most efficient approach, costing 2.29 €/report, followed by hyperlinks (30.28 €/report, having no running costs). Concerning unexpected adverse drug reactions, the best result was obtained with protocols (5.12 €/report), followed by first educational approach (38.79 €/report). CONCLUSIONS We recommend implementing protocols in other pharmacovigilance centers. They seem to be the most efficient intervention, allowing receiving adverse drug reactions reports at lower costs. The increase applied not only to the total number of reports, but also to the severity, unexpectedness and high degree of causality attributed to the adverse drug reactions. Still, hyperlinks have the advantage of not involving running costs, showing the second best performance in cost per adverse drug reactions report. |
publishDate |
2016 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2016-01-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-89102016000100212 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-89102016000100212 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/S1518-8787.2016050006122 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Faculdade de Saúde Pública da Universidade de São Paulo |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Faculdade de Saúde Pública da Universidade de São Paulo |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Revista de Saúde Pública v.50 2016 reponame:Revista de Saúde Pública instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP) instacron:USP |
instname_str |
Universidade de São Paulo (USP) |
instacron_str |
USP |
institution |
USP |
reponame_str |
Revista de Saúde Pública |
collection |
Revista de Saúde Pública |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista de Saúde Pública - Universidade de São Paulo (USP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
revsp@org.usp.br||revsp1@usp.br |
_version_ |
1748936503343448064 |