How patient reporters identify adverse drug reactions

a qualitative study of reporting via the UK Yellow Card Scheme.

on behalf of the Yellow Card Study Collaboration (including Watson MC, Amanda Jane Lee, Elizabeth Murphy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Direct reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to authorities is increasing, but questions remain about how patients identify suspected ADRs and their ability to distinguish between ADRs and other symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine how reporters to the Yellow Card Scheme (YCS) identify ADRs.

METHODS: We carried out a qualitative analysis of data from three sources, obtained as part of a larger evaluation of patient reporting to the UK YCS: responses to open questions in postal questionnaires sent to all reporters during March 2008-January 2009 (method 1); telephone interviews with a purposive sample of these reporters (method 2); and the free-text field from completed Yellow Card reporting forms submitted during October 2005-September 2007 (method 3).

RESULTS: Method 1 involved 1362 questionnaire respondents (67.8% of the 2008 patient reporters during the study period), 1167 of whom explained how they decided they had experienced an ADR. Temporality was the most common reason for the perceived association, given by 820 (70.2%) respondents. 478 (41.0%) provided information on two or more aspects of temporality, such as onset, changes with dose and re-challenge. A total of 383 (32.8%) respondents used information sources, such as patient information leaflets or discussions with health professionals to confirm associations, including 145 (12.4%) who had also reported a temporal association. Telephone interviews with 27 reporters (method 2) provided detailed explanations of temporal associations, particularly experiences of rechallenge, and data from 230 Yellow Card reports (method 3) showed that, although reporters are not required to explain reasons for their suspicions, 74.8% of submitted reports included a temporal association. These reports also showed evidence of causal theorizing and differential diagnosis.

CONCLUSION: In our study sample, most reporters to the YCS feel able to identify suspected ADRs adequately and describe processes of assessing causality that mirror those in standard algorithms designed for use by health professionals. These findings should help to reduce concerns among health professionals about the ability of patients to identify suspected ADRs when reporting to authorities.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)429-436
Number of pages8
JournalDrug Safety
Volume34
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2011

Fingerprint

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Health
Telephone
Interviews
Information Storage and Retrieval
Causality
Mirrors
Differential Diagnosis
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • Adverse-reaction-monitoring
  • Pharmacovigilance
  • Postmarketing-surveillance
  • Questionnaires

Cite this

How patient reporters identify adverse drug reactions : a qualitative study of reporting via the UK Yellow Card Scheme. / on behalf of the Yellow Card Study Collaboration (including Watson MC ; Lee, Amanda Jane; Murphy, Elizabeth.

In: Drug Safety, Vol. 34, No. 5, 01.05.2011, p. 429-436.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

on behalf of the Yellow Card Study Collaboration (including Watson MC ; Lee, Amanda Jane ; Murphy, Elizabeth. / How patient reporters identify adverse drug reactions : a qualitative study of reporting via the UK Yellow Card Scheme. In: Drug Safety. 2011 ; Vol. 34, No. 5. pp. 429-436.
@article{13e9e12e966f4198ac56b03d561be4a8,
title = "How patient reporters identify adverse drug reactions: a qualitative study of reporting via the UK Yellow Card Scheme.",
abstract = "Direct reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to authorities is increasing, but questions remain about how patients identify suspected ADRs and their ability to distinguish between ADRs and other symptoms. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine how reporters to the Yellow Card Scheme (YCS) identify ADRs. METHODS: We carried out a qualitative analysis of data from three sources, obtained as part of a larger evaluation of patient reporting to the UK YCS: responses to open questions in postal questionnaires sent to all reporters during March 2008-January 2009 (method 1); telephone interviews with a purposive sample of these reporters (method 2); and the free-text field from completed Yellow Card reporting forms submitted during October 2005-September 2007 (method 3). RESULTS: Method 1 involved 1362 questionnaire respondents (67.8{\%} of the 2008 patient reporters during the study period), 1167 of whom explained how they decided they had experienced an ADR. Temporality was the most common reason for the perceived association, given by 820 (70.2{\%}) respondents. 478 (41.0{\%}) provided information on two or more aspects of temporality, such as onset, changes with dose and re-challenge. A total of 383 (32.8{\%}) respondents used information sources, such as patient information leaflets or discussions with health professionals to confirm associations, including 145 (12.4{\%}) who had also reported a temporal association. Telephone interviews with 27 reporters (method 2) provided detailed explanations of temporal associations, particularly experiences of rechallenge, and data from 230 Yellow Card reports (method 3) showed that, although reporters are not required to explain reasons for their suspicions, 74.8{\%} of submitted reports included a temporal association. These reports also showed evidence of causal theorizing and differential diagnosis. CONCLUSION: In our study sample, most reporters to the YCS feel able to identify suspected ADRs adequately and describe processes of assessing causality that mirror those in standard algorithms designed for use by health professionals. These findings should help to reduce concerns among health professionals about the ability of patients to identify suspected ADRs when reporting to authorities.",
keywords = "Adverse-reaction-monitoring, Pharmacovigilance, Postmarketing-surveillance, Questionnaires",
author = "Janet Krska and Claire Anderson and Anthony Avery and Mags Watson and {on behalf of the Yellow Card Study Collaboration (including Watson MC} and Lee, {Amanda Jane} and Elizabeth Murphy",
year = "2011",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2165/11589320-000000000-00000",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "429--436",
journal = "Drug Safety",
issn = "0114-5916",
publisher = "Adis International Ltd",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How patient reporters identify adverse drug reactions

T2 - a qualitative study of reporting via the UK Yellow Card Scheme.

AU - Krska, Janet

AU - Anderson, Claire

AU - Avery, Anthony

AU - Watson, Mags

AU - on behalf of the Yellow Card Study Collaboration (including Watson MC

AU - Lee, Amanda Jane

AU - Murphy, Elizabeth

PY - 2011/5/1

Y1 - 2011/5/1

N2 - Direct reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to authorities is increasing, but questions remain about how patients identify suspected ADRs and their ability to distinguish between ADRs and other symptoms. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine how reporters to the Yellow Card Scheme (YCS) identify ADRs. METHODS: We carried out a qualitative analysis of data from three sources, obtained as part of a larger evaluation of patient reporting to the UK YCS: responses to open questions in postal questionnaires sent to all reporters during March 2008-January 2009 (method 1); telephone interviews with a purposive sample of these reporters (method 2); and the free-text field from completed Yellow Card reporting forms submitted during October 2005-September 2007 (method 3). RESULTS: Method 1 involved 1362 questionnaire respondents (67.8% of the 2008 patient reporters during the study period), 1167 of whom explained how they decided they had experienced an ADR. Temporality was the most common reason for the perceived association, given by 820 (70.2%) respondents. 478 (41.0%) provided information on two or more aspects of temporality, such as onset, changes with dose and re-challenge. A total of 383 (32.8%) respondents used information sources, such as patient information leaflets or discussions with health professionals to confirm associations, including 145 (12.4%) who had also reported a temporal association. Telephone interviews with 27 reporters (method 2) provided detailed explanations of temporal associations, particularly experiences of rechallenge, and data from 230 Yellow Card reports (method 3) showed that, although reporters are not required to explain reasons for their suspicions, 74.8% of submitted reports included a temporal association. These reports also showed evidence of causal theorizing and differential diagnosis. CONCLUSION: In our study sample, most reporters to the YCS feel able to identify suspected ADRs adequately and describe processes of assessing causality that mirror those in standard algorithms designed for use by health professionals. These findings should help to reduce concerns among health professionals about the ability of patients to identify suspected ADRs when reporting to authorities.

AB - Direct reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to authorities is increasing, but questions remain about how patients identify suspected ADRs and their ability to distinguish between ADRs and other symptoms. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine how reporters to the Yellow Card Scheme (YCS) identify ADRs. METHODS: We carried out a qualitative analysis of data from three sources, obtained as part of a larger evaluation of patient reporting to the UK YCS: responses to open questions in postal questionnaires sent to all reporters during March 2008-January 2009 (method 1); telephone interviews with a purposive sample of these reporters (method 2); and the free-text field from completed Yellow Card reporting forms submitted during October 2005-September 2007 (method 3). RESULTS: Method 1 involved 1362 questionnaire respondents (67.8% of the 2008 patient reporters during the study period), 1167 of whom explained how they decided they had experienced an ADR. Temporality was the most common reason for the perceived association, given by 820 (70.2%) respondents. 478 (41.0%) provided information on two or more aspects of temporality, such as onset, changes with dose and re-challenge. A total of 383 (32.8%) respondents used information sources, such as patient information leaflets or discussions with health professionals to confirm associations, including 145 (12.4%) who had also reported a temporal association. Telephone interviews with 27 reporters (method 2) provided detailed explanations of temporal associations, particularly experiences of rechallenge, and data from 230 Yellow Card reports (method 3) showed that, although reporters are not required to explain reasons for their suspicions, 74.8% of submitted reports included a temporal association. These reports also showed evidence of causal theorizing and differential diagnosis. CONCLUSION: In our study sample, most reporters to the YCS feel able to identify suspected ADRs adequately and describe processes of assessing causality that mirror those in standard algorithms designed for use by health professionals. These findings should help to reduce concerns among health professionals about the ability of patients to identify suspected ADRs when reporting to authorities.

KW - Adverse-reaction-monitoring

KW - Pharmacovigilance

KW - Postmarketing-surveillance

KW - Questionnaires

U2 - 10.2165/11589320-000000000-00000

DO - 10.2165/11589320-000000000-00000

M3 - Article

VL - 34

SP - 429

EP - 436

JO - Drug Safety

JF - Drug Safety

SN - 0114-5916

IS - 5

ER -