Patient views and experiences of making adverse drug reaction reports to the Yellow card Scheme in the UK

David John McLernon, Christine Margaret Bond, Heather Fortnum, Philip Christopher Hannaford, Janet Krska, Amanda Jane Lee, Mags Watson, Anthony Avery

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

23 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose
To describe the characteristics of patient reporters to the UK's Yellow Card Scheme (YCS) and the suspect drugs reported, and to determine patient views and experiences of making a Yellow Card report.
Methods
A questionnaire was developed for distribution by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to all patients reporting through the YCS between March 2008 and January 2009. Associations between reporting method (online, postal and telephone) and questionnaire responses were examined using Pearson's Chi-squared test.
Results
Evaluable questionnaires were returned by 1362 out of 2008 reporters (68%). Respondents' median (IQR) age was 56.5 (43.0, 67.0) years, 910 (66.8%) were female, 1274 (93.5%) were white and 923 (67.8%) had at least a further education qualification. The most frequent reporting method was postal (59.8%), followed by online (32.8%) and telephone (6.3%). Online reporters were younger with a higher education level than those using other reporting methods. Most respondents, 1274 (93.6%), thought that the report was fairly or very easy to complete, although many identified the need for improvements to the system. One third (n¿=¿448; 32.9%) expected feedback from the MHRA and 828 (60.8%) would have liked feedback. Almost all respondents (n¿=¿1302; 95.6%) would report again.
Conclusions
The majority of patients found the current methods of reporting suspected ADRs easy to use and would recommend them to others. Different methods of reporting were used by different demographic subgroups of reporters. Improvements to the system, including the provision of feedback to reporters, could be made. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)523-531
Number of pages8
JournalPharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
Volume20
Issue number5
Early online date17 Feb 2011
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2011

Fingerprint

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
Telephone
Delivery of Health Care
Education
Nuclear Family
Surveys and Questionnaires
Demography
Pharmaceutical Preparations

Keywords

  • adverse drug reaction reporting system
  • patient
  • questionnaire
  • personal narratives

Cite this

Patient views and experiences of making adverse drug reaction reports to the Yellow card Scheme in the UK. / McLernon, David John; Bond, Christine Margaret; Fortnum, Heather; Hannaford, Philip Christopher; Krska, Janet; Lee, Amanda Jane; Watson, Mags; Avery, Anthony.

In: Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, Vol. 20, No. 5, 05.2011, p. 523-531.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{3a5b69149e9d4bc1b794332b6713010a,
title = "Patient views and experiences of making adverse drug reaction reports to the Yellow card Scheme in the UK",
abstract = "Purpose To describe the characteristics of patient reporters to the UK's Yellow Card Scheme (YCS) and the suspect drugs reported, and to determine patient views and experiences of making a Yellow Card report. Methods A questionnaire was developed for distribution by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to all patients reporting through the YCS between March 2008 and January 2009. Associations between reporting method (online, postal and telephone) and questionnaire responses were examined using Pearson's Chi-squared test. Results Evaluable questionnaires were returned by 1362 out of 2008 reporters (68{\%}). Respondents' median (IQR) age was 56.5 (43.0, 67.0) years, 910 (66.8{\%}) were female, 1274 (93.5{\%}) were white and 923 (67.8{\%}) had at least a further education qualification. The most frequent reporting method was postal (59.8{\%}), followed by online (32.8{\%}) and telephone (6.3{\%}). Online reporters were younger with a higher education level than those using other reporting methods. Most respondents, 1274 (93.6{\%}), thought that the report was fairly or very easy to complete, although many identified the need for improvements to the system. One third (n¿=¿448; 32.9{\%}) expected feedback from the MHRA and 828 (60.8{\%}) would have liked feedback. Almost all respondents (n¿=¿1302; 95.6{\%}) would report again. Conclusions The majority of patients found the current methods of reporting suspected ADRs easy to use and would recommend them to others. Different methods of reporting were used by different demographic subgroups of reporters. Improvements to the system, including the provision of feedback to reporters, could be made. Copyright {\circledC} 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.",
keywords = "adverse drug reaction reporting system, patient, questionnaire, personal narratives",
author = "McLernon, {David John} and Bond, {Christine Margaret} and Heather Fortnum and Hannaford, {Philip Christopher} and Janet Krska and Lee, {Amanda Jane} and Mags Watson and Anthony Avery",
year = "2011",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1002/pds.2117",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "523--531",
journal = "Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety",
issn = "1053-8569",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patient views and experiences of making adverse drug reaction reports to the Yellow card Scheme in the UK

AU - McLernon, David John

AU - Bond, Christine Margaret

AU - Fortnum, Heather

AU - Hannaford, Philip Christopher

AU - Krska, Janet

AU - Lee, Amanda Jane

AU - Watson, Mags

AU - Avery, Anthony

PY - 2011/5

Y1 - 2011/5

N2 - Purpose To describe the characteristics of patient reporters to the UK's Yellow Card Scheme (YCS) and the suspect drugs reported, and to determine patient views and experiences of making a Yellow Card report. Methods A questionnaire was developed for distribution by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to all patients reporting through the YCS between March 2008 and January 2009. Associations between reporting method (online, postal and telephone) and questionnaire responses were examined using Pearson's Chi-squared test. Results Evaluable questionnaires were returned by 1362 out of 2008 reporters (68%). Respondents' median (IQR) age was 56.5 (43.0, 67.0) years, 910 (66.8%) were female, 1274 (93.5%) were white and 923 (67.8%) had at least a further education qualification. The most frequent reporting method was postal (59.8%), followed by online (32.8%) and telephone (6.3%). Online reporters were younger with a higher education level than those using other reporting methods. Most respondents, 1274 (93.6%), thought that the report was fairly or very easy to complete, although many identified the need for improvements to the system. One third (n¿=¿448; 32.9%) expected feedback from the MHRA and 828 (60.8%) would have liked feedback. Almost all respondents (n¿=¿1302; 95.6%) would report again. Conclusions The majority of patients found the current methods of reporting suspected ADRs easy to use and would recommend them to others. Different methods of reporting were used by different demographic subgroups of reporters. Improvements to the system, including the provision of feedback to reporters, could be made. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

AB - Purpose To describe the characteristics of patient reporters to the UK's Yellow Card Scheme (YCS) and the suspect drugs reported, and to determine patient views and experiences of making a Yellow Card report. Methods A questionnaire was developed for distribution by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to all patients reporting through the YCS between March 2008 and January 2009. Associations between reporting method (online, postal and telephone) and questionnaire responses were examined using Pearson's Chi-squared test. Results Evaluable questionnaires were returned by 1362 out of 2008 reporters (68%). Respondents' median (IQR) age was 56.5 (43.0, 67.0) years, 910 (66.8%) were female, 1274 (93.5%) were white and 923 (67.8%) had at least a further education qualification. The most frequent reporting method was postal (59.8%), followed by online (32.8%) and telephone (6.3%). Online reporters were younger with a higher education level than those using other reporting methods. Most respondents, 1274 (93.6%), thought that the report was fairly or very easy to complete, although many identified the need for improvements to the system. One third (n¿=¿448; 32.9%) expected feedback from the MHRA and 828 (60.8%) would have liked feedback. Almost all respondents (n¿=¿1302; 95.6%) would report again. Conclusions The majority of patients found the current methods of reporting suspected ADRs easy to use and would recommend them to others. Different methods of reporting were used by different demographic subgroups of reporters. Improvements to the system, including the provision of feedback to reporters, could be made. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KW - adverse drug reaction reporting system

KW - patient

KW - questionnaire

KW - personal narratives

U2 - 10.1002/pds.2117

DO - 10.1002/pds.2117

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 523

EP - 531

JO - Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

JF - Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

SN - 1053-8569

IS - 5

ER -