Knowledge, attitude and practice of community pharmacists of Gujarat towards adverse drug reactions

KAP of community pharmacists of Gujarat towards adverse drug reactions

International Archives of Integrated Medicine, Vol.

Copy right © 2014, IAIM, All Rights Reserved.

Original Research Article

Knowledge, attitude and practice of community

pharmacists of Gujarat towards adverse drug reactions

Kajal Rathod1 H.R. Manager2Senior Executive,

Abstract

Background: Adverse drug reactions (ADR) are one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity

in India. Community pharmacists are first to report and also in contact with patients, so assessing

their knowledge, attitude and practice towards adverse drug reactions

Aim: To assess knowledge, attitude and practices of community pharmacists of Gujarat towards

adverse drug reactions (ADR).

Material and methods: Cross-sectional study was conducted at Gujarat during the period of January

2014 to June 2014 among 150 community pharmacists.

questionnaire which included 8 questions related to knowledge, 6 questions related to attitude and

6 questions related to practice towards adverse drug reaction (ADR).

Results: Community pharmacists

adverse drug reactions (ADR).

Conclusion: Our findings suggest

managerial interventions regularly to improve ADR reporting

Key words

Knowledge, Attitude, Practice, Adverse drug reactions, Community pharmacists, Gujarat.

Introduction

At present one can’t ignore

reactions (ADR) as one of the leading causes of

morbidity and mortality [1, 2, 3]

too much health care costs [4, 5, 6].

Received on: 01-08-2014

Revised on: 18-08-2014

Accepted on:25-08-2014

How to cite this article:

practice of community pharmacists of Gujarat towards adverse drug

reactions.

Available online a

*Corresponding Author: Kajal Rathod

Rhythm Info Callers Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat, India.

E mail: [email protected]


International Archives of Integrated Medicine, Vol. 1, Issue. 1, September, 2014.




Kajal Rathod1*

, Arpit Panchal2

H.R. Manager, Rhythm Info Callers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujarat, India.

Senior Executive, Reliance Industries Ltd., Surat, Gujarat, India

Adverse drug reactions (ADR) are one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity


their knowledge, attitude and practice towards adverse drug reactions is very helpful.

To assess knowledge, attitude and practices of community pharmacists of Gujarat towards

sectional study was conducted at Gujarat during the period of January

among 150 community pharmacists. We had interviewed

8 questions related to knowledge, 6 questions related to attitude and

6 questions related to practice towards adverse drug reaction (ADR).

acists had poor knowledge and practice but good attitude towards

Our findings suggested the need for positive, evidence based

regularly to improve ADR reporting.


At present one can’t ignore adverse drug

reactions (ADR) as one of the leading causes of

morbidity and mortality [1, 2, 3] which leads to

too much health care costs [4, 5, 6]. Each and

every ADR can’t be documented by the

manufacturer via early safety studies

very much essential to mon

marketing of drugs [3, 7]. The catastrophe of

thalidomide adverse reaction has aw

countries to establish Pharmacovigilance (PV)

systems for detecting ADR

World Health Organization (WHO) definition, an

ADR is any noxious, unintended, and undesired

effects of a drug, which occurs at doses used

How to cite this article: Rathod K, Panchal A. Knowledge, attitude and


reactions. IAIM, 2014; 1(1): 18-25.

Available online at www.iaimjournal.com

Kajal Rathod,

Gujarat, India.

[email protected]


Page 18



Rhythm Info Callers Pvt. Ltd., Surat, Gujarat, India.

ndia.

Adverse drug reactions (ADR) are one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity


is very helpful.

To assess knowledge, attitude and practices of community pharmacists of Gujarat towards

sectional study was conducted at Gujarat during the period of January

We had interviewed them with

8 questions related to knowledge, 6 questions related to attitude and

poor knowledge and practice but good attitude towards

positive, evidence based educational and


be documented by the

via early safety studies, so it is

to monitor ADR after

[3, 7]. The catastrophe of

thalidomide adverse reaction has awaked many

countries to establish Pharmacovigilance (PV)

ystems for detecting ADR [8]. According to

World Health Organization (WHO) definition, an

any noxious, unintended, and undesired

of a drug, which occurs at doses used in

Knowledge, attitude and





humans for prophylaxis, diagnosis, or therapy

[9]. Among various methods of detecting ADR,

spontaneous reporting has contributed

drastically in superior levels of

pharmacovigilance in many countries [10, 11].

None reporting or under reporting of ADR is a

key barrier for the evolution of

pharmacovigilance programs [12].

association between ADR

knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) of

community pharmacists had been documented

by various studies [3, 13, 14, 15, 16,

improvement in the KAP of

pharmacists is important for pharmacovigilance

program in any country [18,

pharmacists (CP) are usually

contacted by patients in most ADR and they are

very important source of ADR

the present study, we had selected

pharmacists as the study population and the

objective of the study was to determine the

knowledge, attitude and practice of ADR.

Material and method

Cross-sectional study was conducted at Gujarat

during the period of January 2014 to June 2014.

The study population was 15

pharmacists. Selection of the study population

was random but we had include

who gave voluntary informed written consent

well structured validated and self administered

questionnaire was used to assess the

knowledge, attitude and practice

questionnaire was pretested and verified for

errors. [21, 22, 23] Questionnaire included 8

questions related to knowledge, 6 questions

related to attitude and 6 questions related to

practice towards adverse drug reaction (ADR).

We had interviewed community pharmacists

and collected the data. After that every

community pharmacist had been

20 minutes to fill the questionnaire

they were analyzed.




humans for prophylaxis, diagnosis, or therapy

[9]. Among various methods of detecting ADR,

spontaneous reporting has contributed

drastically in superior levels of

ance in many countries [10, 11].

None reporting or under reporting of ADR is a

key barrier for the evolution of

pharmacovigilance programs [12]. Strong

reporting and

itude and practice (KAP) of

d been documented

by various studies [3, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17]. So

the KAP of community

pharmacovigilance

19]. Community

usually first to be

most ADR and they are

reporting [2]. In

we had selected community

as the study population and the

objective of the study was to determine the

knowledge, attitude and practice of ADR.

sectional study was conducted at Gujarat

during the period of January 2014 to June 2014.

The study population was 150 community

. Selection of the study population

included only those

formed written consent. A

well structured validated and self administered

questionnaire was used to assess the

knowledge, attitude and practice [20]. The

as pretested and verified for

Questionnaire included 8

elated to knowledge, 6 questions

related to attitude and 6 questions related to

practice towards adverse drug reaction (ADR).

We had interviewed community pharmacists

and collected the data. After that every

been given time of

inutes to fill the questionnaire and later

Results

Out study population included 70.67% male

29.33% of female community pharmacists. Of all

the community pharmacists answering the

questionnaire, 32.67% were D.Pharm, 42.67%

were B.Pharm, 12.66% were M.Pharm, 8.0%

were PharmD and 4% were PhD. The highest

number of community pharmacists (40.67%)

was between age group of 31

Table -1.

There were 8 questions for assessment of

knowledge of community pharmacists about

ADR. Among 150 respondents,

aware of terminology ADR. Only 95

the community pharmacists were aware of

national pharmacovigilance centre and

programs. Total 90 (60%) of community

pharmacists were telling all herbal products

were free from ADR. Similarly 79

community pharmacists knew about location of

nearest pharmacovigilance centre. Total 101

(67.33%) respondents believed that ADR should

be reported only when they were

endanger to life as per Table

There were 6 questions related to the attitude

of community pharmacists towards ADR.

Though the respondents had poor knowledge,

they had good attitude towards ADR. Nearly

more than two third of community pharmacists

(80.67%) agreed that they should be involved

ADR reporting process. Total 119 (79.33%)

respondents felt that reporting ADR is part of

professionalism of pharmacists as per

There were 6 questions related to practice of

community pharmacists towards ADR. As

compared to good attitude of th

they had poor practice. Only

community pharmacists had prevented any

serious ADR during their practice. Total 38

(25.33%) had sent suspected ADR report to the

manufacturer. Similarly only 51 (34%) of


Page 19

population included 70.67% male and

29.33% of female community pharmacists. Of all

the community pharmacists answering the

questionnaire, 32.67% were D.Pharm, 42.67%

B.Pharm, 12.66% were M.Pharm, 8.0%

were PharmD and 4% were PhD. The highest

number of community pharmacists (40.67%)

was between age group of 31-40 years as per

There were 8 questions for assessment of

knowledge of community pharmacists about

R. Among 150 respondents, 98 (65.33%) were

aware of terminology ADR. Only 95 (63.33%) of

the community pharmacists were aware of

national pharmacovigilance centre and

programs. Total 90 (60%) of community

pharmacists were telling all herbal products

ree from ADR. Similarly 79 (52.67%) of

community pharmacists knew about location of

nearest pharmacovigilance centre. Total 101

(67.33%) respondents believed that ADR should

be reported only when they were grave and

Table – 2.

were 6 questions related to the attitude

of community pharmacists towards ADR.

Though the respondents had poor knowledge,

they had good attitude towards ADR. Nearly

more than two third of community pharmacists

(80.67%) agreed that they should be involved in

ADR reporting process. Total 119 (79.33%)

respondents felt that reporting ADR is part of

of pharmacists as per Table – 3.

There were 6 questions related to practice of

community pharmacists towards ADR. As

compared to good attitude of the respondents,

they had poor practice. Only 57 (38%) of

community pharmacists had prevented any



manufacturer. Similarly only 51 (34%) of




community pharmacists were co

patients regarding ADR as per Table

results showed that community pharmacists

poor knowledge and practice but good attitude

towards ADR.

Discussion

ADR has significant role in morbidity and

mortality of health set up with its associated

monetary penalty [9, 24]. To recognize ADR

causing drugs, many countries have initiated

pharmacovigilance programs in the recent past.

It is advisable for each country to

own pharmacovigilance programs

individual variation in drug response, different

prescription habits, regulatory body for drugs,

drug availability etc. [9].

Under reporting of ADR is one of the serious

problem for various pharamcovigilance

programs which are good enough to i

drug use patterns [25]. It is essential to improve

the knowledge, attitude and practices (KAP) of

the community pharmacists

reporting and Pharmacovigilance

improvement of reporting rate.

better knowledge about drugs and they are also close

to patient in both hospital and society and thus they

can contribute significantly in ADR reporting.

present study suggested that

pharmacists had poor knowledge towards ADR

reporting and pharmacovigilance

is comparable with other previous studies [15,

26, 27].

Present study showed that 82 (54.67%)

community pharmacists don’t know how t

report ADR. Similar observations had been

noted in China [28] where most

poor knowledge on how to report ADR

opposite side, various studies conducted at UK

[29] and Australia [30] showed adequate

knowledge among participants on how to report




community pharmacists were counseling the

Table - 4. All these

results showed that community pharmacists had

poor knowledge and practice but good attitude

has significant role in morbidity and

with its associated

To recognize ADR

countries have initiated

pharmacovigilance programs in the recent past.

country to establish their

own pharmacovigilance programs because of

individual variation in drug response, different

prescription habits, regulatory body for drugs,

one of the serious

for various pharamcovigilance

programs which are good enough to improve

essential to improve

ractices (KAP) of

towards ADR

reporting and Pharmacovigilance for better

. Pharmacists have

drugs and they are also close

to patient in both hospital and society and thus they

can contribute significantly in ADR reporting. The

that community

pharmacists had poor knowledge towards ADR

reporting and pharmacovigilance activity, which

previous studies [15,

Present study showed that 82 (54.67%)

t know how to

observations had been

participants had

to report ADR. On the

studies conducted at UK

] showed adequate

knowledge among participants on how to report

ADR. Rajesh, et al. [31] showed that educational

support significantly increased knowledge,

attitude and practice of pharmacovigilance

among health care providers.

suggested need for awareness programs for the

pharmacists about ADR reporting.

Present study showed good

community pharmacist, though the knowledge

was poor. The findings of

consistent with other studies

where pharmacists showed

towards ADR reporting but different from th

study done at New Zealand, where pharmacists

showed negative attitude [32

study, 79.33% of the community pharmacist

were agreed that ADR reporting was a part of

their professionalism. These results were

to study conducted at Saudi Arabia [15] where

the vast majority of p

considered ADR reporting a

professionalism. In the pre

towards ADR was also very poor. Only

of community pharmacists had prevented any



manufacturer.

Overall poor KAP score

present study which suggested

improve the ADR reporting. For the same

certain steps like improvement

in future to reduce the incidence of

clinical practice and reduction in health care

costs. Promotion of patient self

an important step [33, 34]. Patient self

can play complimentary role to

reporting in developing country such as India. It

was also opined that reporting

should be prioritized. Reporting should be made

easy and convenient by e mail or

telephone, fax etc., which can improve speed

and quality of reports.


Page 20

Rajesh, et al. [31] showed that educational

support significantly increased knowledge,

attitude and practice of pharmacovigilance

among health care providers. These findings

suggested need for awareness programs for the

pharmacists about ADR reporting.

esent study showed good attitude of the

community pharmacist, though the knowledge

was poor. The findings of our study were

other studies of UK [13, 30],

where pharmacists showed positive attitude

reporting but different from the

study done at New Zealand, where pharmacists

showed negative attitude [32]. In the present

79.33% of the community pharmacists

reporting was a part of

These results were similar

di Arabia [15] where

the vast majority of pharmacists (90%)

reporting as part of their

In the present study, practice

also very poor. Only 57 (38%)

of community pharmacists had prevented any

g their practice. Total 38


was noted during

present study which suggested there is need to

reporting. For the same,

improvement in ADR reporting

the incidence of ADR in

reduction in health care

romotion of patient self reporting is also

Patient self reporting

complimentary role to increase ADR

developing country such as India. It

was also opined that reporting of serious ADR

should be prioritized. Reporting should be made

easy and convenient by e mail or website,

which can improve speed




Patient safety and better community is the

prime goal which can be achieved by active and

voluntary participation of community

pharmacists in the pharmacovigilance

However, pharmacovigilance center

up positive attitude of the pharmacists,

them understand value of reporting in morbidity

and mortality reduction by reporting

updating them regarding pharmacovigilance

news time to time.

Conclusion

We identified the knowledge, attitude and

practice of the community pharmacists

regarding ADR monitoring and

pharmacovigilance. Overall the

attitude and practice scores were low. Our

findings suggested the need for

evidence based educational and managerial

interventions regularly.

Acknowledgement

Authors acknowledge the immense help

received from the scholars whose articles are

cited and included in references

manuscript. The authors are

authors / editors /publishers of all those articles,

journals and books from where the literat

this article has been reviewed and discussed.

References

1. Gallagher RM, Kirkham JJ, Mason JR,

Bird KA, Williamson PR, Nunn AJ, et al.

Development and inter

of the Liverpool adverse drug reaction

causality assessment tool,

2011; 6(12): e28096.

2. Elkalmi RM, Hassali MA, Ibrahim MIM,

Widodo RT, Efan QM, Hadi MA.

Pharmacy students’ knowledge and

perceptions about pharmaco vigilance i




and better community is the

which can be achieved by active and

of community

pharmacists in the pharmacovigilance program.

center has to keep

up positive attitude of the pharmacists, make

value of reporting in morbidity

by reporting and by

pharmacovigilance

We identified the knowledge, attitude and

of the community pharmacists

monitoring and

pharmacovigilance. Overall the knowledge,

scores were low. Our

the need for positive,

educational and managerial

acknowledge the immense help

received from the scholars whose articles are

cited and included in references of this

also grateful to

authors / editors /publishers of all those articles,

journals and books from where the literature for

this article has been reviewed and discussed.

Gallagher RM, Kirkham JJ, Mason JR,

Bird KA, Williamson PR, Nunn AJ, et al.

Development and inter-rater reliability

of the Liverpool adverse drug reaction

causality assessment tool, PloS One,

Elkalmi RM, Hassali MA, Ibrahim MIM,

Widodo RT, Efan QM, Hadi MA.

Pharmacy students’ knowledge and

perceptions about pharmaco vigilance in

Malaysian public universities.

Pharm Educ, 2011; 75(5)

3. Kharkar M, Bowalekar S. Kno

attitude and perception/practices (KAP)

of medical practitioners in India towards

adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting.

Perspect Clin Res, 2012; 3(3)

4. Patel KJ, Kedia MS, Bajpai D, Mehta SS,

Kshirsagar NA, Gogtay NJ. Evaluation of

the prevalence and economic burden of

adverse drug reactions presenting to the

medical emergency department of a

tertiary referral centre: A prospective

study. BMC Clinical Pharmacology, 2007;

7(1): 7-8.

5. Dormann H, Muth-

Criegee-Rieck M, Tegeder

HT, et al. Incidence and costs of adverse

drug reactions during hospitalization.

Drug Saf, 2000; 22(2)

6. Ernst FR, Grizzle AJ. Drug

morbidity and mortality: Updating the

cost-of-illness model.

(Wash), 2001; 41(2):

7. Stricker BH, Psaty BM. Detection,

verification, and quantification of

adverse drug reactions.

329(7456): 44-47.

8. Meyboom RH, Egberts AC, Gribnau FW,

Hekster YA. Pharmacovigilance in

perspective. Drug Saf, 1999; 21(6):

447.

9. World Health Organization. Safety of

Medicines - A guide for detecting and

reporting adverse drug reactions.

Geneva, Switzerland: World Health

Organization, 2002.

10. Waller PC. Making the most of

spontaneous adverse drug reaction

reporting. Basic Clin

2006; 98: 320-323.

11. Vallano A, Cereza G, Pedròs C, Agustí A,

Danés I, Aguilera C,

solutions for spontaneous reporting of


Page 21

Malaysian public universities. Am J

Pharm Educ, 2011; 75(5).

Kharkar M, Bowalekar S. Knowledge,

attitude and perception/practices (KAP)

of medical practitioners in India towards

adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting.

Perspect Clin Res, 2012; 3(3): 90-94.

Patel KJ, Kedia MS, Bajpai D, Mehta SS,

Kshirsagar NA, Gogtay NJ. Evaluation of

lence and economic burden of

adverse drug reactions presenting to the

medical emergency department of a

tertiary referral centre: A prospective

BMC Clinical Pharmacology, 2007;

-Selbach U, Krebs S,

Rieck M, Tegeder I, Schneider

HT, et al. Incidence and costs of adverse

drug reactions during hospitalization.

Drug Saf, 2000; 22(2): 161-168.

Ernst FR, Grizzle AJ. Drug-related

morbidity and mortality: Updating the

illness model. J Am Pharm Assoc

1(2): 192-199.

Stricker BH, Psaty BM. Detection,

verification, and quantification of

adverse drug reactions. Br Med J, 2004;

Meyboom RH, Egberts AC, Gribnau FW,

Hekster YA. Pharmacovigilance in

Drug Saf, 1999; 21(6): 429-

World Health Organization. Safety of

A guide for detecting and

reporting adverse drug reactions.

Geneva, Switzerland: World Health

, 2002.

Waller PC. Making the most of

spontaneous adverse drug reaction

lin Pharmacol Toxicol.,

Vallano A, Cereza G, Pedròs C, Agustí A,

Aguilera C, et al. Obstacles and

solutions for spontaneous reporting of




adverse drug reactions in the hospital.

Br J Clin Pharmacol., 2005; 60: 653

12. Hazell L, Shakir SA. Under


29(5): 385-396.

13. Sweis D, Wong IC. A survey on factors

that could affect adverse drug reaction

reporting according to hospital

pharmacists in Great Britain.

2000; 23(2): 165-172.

14. Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A, Polnia J,

Gestal-Otero JJ. Physicians’ Attitudes

and Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting.

Drug saf, 2005; 28(9): 825

15. Bawazir SA. Attitude of community

pharmacists in Saudi Arabia towards

adverse drug reaction reporting.

Pharm J, 2006; 14(1): 75

16. Aziz Z, Siang TC, Badarudin NS.

Reporting of adverse drug reactions:

Predictors of under

Malaysia. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf,

2007; 26(2): 223-228.

17. Gavaza P, Brown CM, Lawson KA,

Rascati KL, Wilson JP, Ste

Influence of attitudes on pharmacists'

intention to report serious adverse drug

events to the Food and Drug

Administration. Br J Clin Pharmacol.,

2011; 72(1): 143-152.

18. Van Grootheest AC, Van Puijenbroek EP,

De Jongvan den Berg LTW. Contribution

of pharmacists to the reporting of


Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf, 2002;

11(3): 205-210.

19. Herdeiro MT, Polnia J, Gestal

Figueiras A. Improving the Reporting of

Adverse Drug Reactions.

31(4): 335-344.

20. Rathod GB, Parmar P. Comparison

regarding knowledge, attitude and

practice of blood donation between

health professionals and general




adverse drug reactions in the hospital.

2005; 60: 653-658.

Shakir SA. Under-reporting of

adverse drug reactions. Drug Saf, 2006;

Sweis D, Wong IC. A survey on factors

that could affect adverse drug reaction

reporting according to hospital

pharmacists in Great Britain. Drug Saf,

Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A, Polnia J,

Otero JJ. Physicians’ Attitudes

and Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting.

825-833.

Bawazir SA. Attitude of community

pharmacists in Saudi Arabia towards

adverse drug reaction reporting. Saudi

75-83.

Aziz Z, Siang TC, Badarudin NS.

Reporting of adverse drug reactions:

Predictors of under-reporting in

Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf,

Gavaza P, Brown CM, Lawson KA,

Rascati KL, Wilson JP, Steinhardt M.

Influence of attitudes on pharmacists'

intention to report serious adverse drug

events to the Food and Drug

Br J Clin Pharmacol.,

Van Grootheest AC, Van Puijenbroek EP,

De Jongvan den Berg LTW. Contribution

of pharmacists to the reporting of


Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf, 2002;

Herdeiro MT, Polnia J, Gestal-Otero JJ,

Figueiras A. Improving the Reporting of

Adverse Drug Reactions. Drug Saf, 2008;

, Parmar P. Comparison

regarding knowledge, attitude and

practice of blood donation between

health professionals and general

population. Int J Cur Res Rev, 2012;

4(21): 114-120.

21. Parmar P, Rathod GB. Study of

knowledge, attitude and perception

regarding medico-

general population. Int J Med Pharm Sci,

2013; 3(6): 1-6.

22. Rathod GB, Rathod

A. Study of knowledge,

practice of general

Waghodia towards Diabetes

J Cur Res Rev, 2014;

23. Parmar P, Rathod GB, Rathod S, Goyal R,

Aggarwal S, Parikh A. Study of

knowledge, attitude and practice of

general population of Gandhinagar

towards hypertension.

Microbiol. App. Sci, 2014;

24. Moore N, Lecointre D, Noblet C,

M. Frequency and cost of serious

adverse drug reactions in a department

of general medicine. Br J Clin

Pharmacol., 1998; 45: 301

25. Lee A, Thomas SHL. Adverse drug

reactions. In: Walker R and Edward C.

Clinical pharmacy and Therapeutics. 3

edition, Churchill Livingstone

33-46.

26. Vessal G, Mardani Z, Mollai M.

Knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions

of pharmacists to adverse drug reaction

reporting in Iran.

2009; 31(2): 183-187.

27. Ting KN, Stratton-Powell DM, Anderson

C. Community pharmacists views on

adverse drug reactions reporting in

Malaysia: A pilot study.

Sci., 2010; 32(3): 339

28. Green CF, Mottram DR, Rowe PH,

Pirmohamed M. Attitudes and

knowledge of hospital p

adverse drug reaction reporting.

Pharmacol., 2001; 51(1):


Page 22

population. Int J Cur Res Rev, 2012;

Parmar P, Rathod GB. Study of

knowledge, attitude and perception

-legal autopsy in

general population. Int J Med Pharm Sci,

S, Parmar P, Parikh

knowledge, attitude and

general population of

Diabetes mellitus. Int

6(1): 63-68.

Parmar P, Rathod GB, Rathod S, Goyal R,

Aggarwal S, Parikh A. Study of

knowledge, attitude and practice of

general population of Gandhinagar

towards hypertension. Int. J. Curr.

2014; 3(8): 680-685.

Moore N, Lecointre D, Noblet C, Mabille

M. Frequency and cost of serious

adverse drug reactions in a department

of general medicine. Br J Clin

Pharmacol., 1998; 45: 301-308.

Lee A, Thomas SHL. Adverse drug

In: Walker R and Edward C.

Clinical pharmacy and Therapeutics. 3rd

Churchill Livingstone, 2003, p.

G, Mardani Z, Mollai M.

Knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions

of pharmacists to adverse drug reaction

reporting in Iran. Pharm World Sci,

187.

Powell DM, Anderson

C. Community pharmacists views on

adverse drug reactions reporting in

Malaysia: A pilot study. Pharm World

339-342.

Green CF, Mottram DR, Rowe PH,

Pirmohamed M. Attitudes and

knowledge of hospital pharmacists to

adverse drug reaction reporting. Br J Clin

Pharmacol., 2001; 51(1): 81-86.




29. Li Q, Zhang SM, Chen HT, Fang SP, Yu X,

Liu D, et al. Awareness and attitudes of

healthcare professionals in Wuhan,

China to the reporting of adverse drug

reactions. Chin Med J (Engl), 2004;

117(6): 856-861.

30. Evans SM, Berry JG, Smith BJ, Esterman

A, Selim P, OShaughnessy J, et al.

Attitudes and barriers to incident

reporting: A collaborative hospital study.

Qual Saf Health Care, 2006; 15(1)

31. Rajesh R, Vidyasagar S, Muralidhar

Varma D. An Educational Intervention to

assess Knowledge Attitude Practice of

pharmacovigilance among Health care

professionals in an Indian tertiary care

teaching hospital. Int J PharmTech.,

2011; 3(2): 678-92.

Source of support: Nil

Conflict of interest: None declared.

Table – 1: Demographic profile of the respondents.

Variables Categ

Age (Years) 22-30

31-40

41-50

>50

Gender Male

Female

Qualification D.Pharm

B.Pharm

M.Pharm

PharmD

PhD




Li Q, Zhang SM, Chen HT, Fang SP, Yu X,

Liu D, et al. Awareness and attitudes of

healthcare professionals in Wuhan,

China to the reporting of adverse drug

Chin Med J (Engl), 2004;

Evans SM, Berry JG, Smith BJ, Esterman

A, Selim P, OShaughnessy J, et al.

Attitudes and barriers to incident

reporting: A collaborative hospital study.

Qual Saf Health Care, 2006; 15(1): 39-43.

ar S, Muralidhar

Varma D. An Educational Intervention to

assess Knowledge Attitude Practice of

pharmacovigilance among Health care

professionals in an Indian tertiary care

teaching hospital. Int J PharmTech.,

32. Zolezzi M, Parsotam N. Adve

reaction reporting in New Zealand:

Implications for pharmacists.

Risk Manag., 2005; 1(3)

33. Blenkinsopp A, Wilkie P, Wang M,

Routledge PA. Patient reporting of

suspected adverse drug reactions: A

review of published literature an

international experience. Br J Clin

Pharmacol., 2007; 63: 148

34. van Hunsel F, Passier A, van Grootheest

K. Comparing patients’ and healthcare

professionals’ ADR reports after media

attention: The broadcast of a Dutch

television programme about the

benefits and risks of statins as an

example. Br J Clin Pharmacol., 2009; 67:

558-64.

None declared.

of the respondents.

ategories No. %

30 32 21.33

40 61 40.67

50 47 31.33

10 6.67

Male 106 70.67

Female 44 29.33

D.Pharm 49 32.67

B.Pharm 64 42.67

M.Pharm 19 12.66

PharmD 12 8.0

PhD 06 4.0


Page 23

Zolezzi M, Parsotam N. Adverse drug

reaction reporting in New Zealand:

Implications for pharmacists. Ther Clin

Risk Manag., 2005; 1(3): 181-188.

Blenkinsopp A, Wilkie P, Wang M,

Routledge PA. Patient reporting of

suspected adverse drug reactions: A

review of published literature and

international experience. Br J Clin

Pharmacol., 2007; 63: 148-56.

van Hunsel F, Passier A, van Grootheest

K. Comparing patients’ and healthcare

professionals’ ADR reports after media

attention: The broadcast of a Dutch

television programme about the

fits and risks of statins as an

example. Br J Clin Pharmacol., 2009; 67:

%

21.33

40.67

31.33

6.67

70.67

29.33

32.67

42.67

12.66

8.0

4.0




Table - 2: Responses to knowledge related questions.

Sr.

No.

Questions

1. Do you know about adverse drug reactions (ADR)

2. Do you consider every drug

harmless?

3. Every herbal product available in the

adverse drug reactions (

4. Do you know how to make report of ADR

4. Do you have any idea regarding National

Pharmacovigilance Centre and programs?

5. Do you know where the nearest Pharmacovigilance

Centre is located?

6. ADR should be reported only when they are grave

endanger to life. – Is it true?

7. Reports of National ADR C

people?

Table – 3: Responses to attitude related questions.

Sr.

No.

Questions

1. Community pharmacist should

2. ADR reporting is part of the professionalism of pharmacist

3. Do you think serious ADR

the relevant authority?

4. ADR reporting should be made compulsory for all

pharmacists?

5. Consulting the physician is important before reporting an ADR?

6. Do you agree that ADR is related to t

or not?




Responses to knowledge related questions.

Yes

No. %

about adverse drug reactions (ADR)? 98 65.33

Do you consider every drug obtainable in the shop is 46 30.66

available in the shop may have

adverse drug reactions (ADR)?

90 60

make report of ADR? 68 45.33

have any idea regarding National

entre and programs?

95 63.33

where the nearest Pharmacovigilance 79 52.67

should be reported only when they are grave and

Is it true?

101 67.33

National ADR Centre are available for all 57 38

Responses to attitude related questions.

Yes

No.

Community pharmacist should be involved in ADR reporting? 121

ADR reporting is part of the professionalism of pharmacist? 119

encourage pharmacists to report it to 98

ADR reporting should be made compulsory for all practicing 96

onsulting the physician is important before reporting an ADR? 59

that ADR is related to the drug, before reporting 101


Page 24

No

No. %

65.33 52 34.67

30.66 104 69.34

60 40

45.33 82 54.67

63.33 55 36.67

52.67 71 47.33

67.33 49 32.67

93 62

No

% No. %

89.67 29 19.33

79.33 31 20.67

65.33 52 34.67

64 54 36

39.33 91 60.67

67.33 49 32.67




Table - 4: Responses to practice

Sr.

No.

Questions

1. Is reporting form of ADR

2. Have you ever prevented any serious ADR

3. Do you counsel the patients regarding ADR during

practice?

4. Have you noticed an ADR cases

5. Are you sending a suspected ADR report to the

6. Have you attended any ADR workshop or training?




related questions.

Yes

No.

of ADR available at your workplace? 110

ou ever prevented any serious ADR? 57

patients regarding ADR during routine 51

Have you noticed an ADR cases during your practice? 76

g a suspected ADR report to the manufacturer? 38

any ADR workshop or training? 36


Page 25

No

% No. %

73.33 40 26.67

38 93 62

34 99 66

50.67 74 49.33

25.33 112 74.67

24 114 76

Documents

Knowledge, attitude and practice of community pharmacists of Gujarat towards adverse drug reactions