How to promote adverse drug reaction reports using information systems - a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Type: Another Publication in an International Scientific Journal
• Date: 2016

Authors

Ribeiro Vaz, I (Author) FMUP; Silva, AM (Author) FMUP; Cristina Costa Santos (Author) FMUP; Ricardo Cruz Correia (Author) FMUP

Journal

Title: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Vol. 16

Final page: 27

ISSN: 1472-6947

Publisher: Springer Nature

Indexing

ISI Web of Knowledge - 49 Citations

Scopus - 46 Citations

Other information

Authenticus ID: P-00K-8VV

DOI: 10.1186/s12911-016-0265-8

Abstract (EN): Background: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are a well-recognized public health problem and a major cause of death and hospitalization in developed countries. The safety of a new drug cannot be established until it has been on the market for several years. Keeping drug reactions under surveillance through pharmacovigilance systems is indispensable. However, underreporting is a major issue that undermines the effectiveness of spontaneous reports. Our work presents a systematic review on the use of information systems for the promotion of ADR reporting. The aim of this work is to describe the state of the art information systems used to promote adverse drug reaction reporting. Methods: A systematic review was performed with quantitative analysis of studies describing or evaluating the use of information systems to promote adverse drug reaction reporting. Studies with data related to the number of ADRs reported before and after each intervention and the follow-up period were included in the quantitative analysis. Results: From a total of 3865 articles, 33 articles were included in the analysis; these articles described 29 different projects. Most of the projects were on a regional scale (62 %) and were performed in a hospital context (52 %). A total of 76 % performed passive promotion of ADR reporting and used web-based software (55 %). A total of 72 % targeted healthcare professionals and 24 % were oriented to patient ADR reporting. We performed a meta-analysis of 7 of the 29 projects to calculate the aggregated measure of the ADR reporting increase, which had an overall measure of 2.1 (indicating that the interventions doubled the number of ADRs reported). Conclusions: We found that most of the projects performed passive promotion of ADR reporting (i.e., facilitating the process). They were developed in hospitals and were tailored to healthcare professionals. These interventions doubled the number of ADR reports. We believe that it would be useful to develop systems to assist healthcare professionals with completing ADR reporting within electronic health records because this approach seems to be an efficient method to increase the ADR reporting rate. When this approach is not possible, it is essential to have a tool that is easily accessible on the web to report ADRs. This tool can be promoted by sending emails or through the inclusion of direct hyperlinks on healthcare professionals' desktops.

Language: English

Type (Professor's evaluation): Scientific

No. of pages: 10