Patients views and experiences in online reporting adverse drug reactions: findings of a national pilot study in Japan
Authors Yamamoto M, Kubota K, Okazaki M, Dobashi A, Hashiguchi M, Doi H, Suka M, Mochizuki M
Received 14 October 2014
Accepted for publication 13 December 2014
Published 23 January 2015 Volume 2015:9 Pages 173—184
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewer comments 4
Editor who approved publication: Dr Johnny Chen
Michiko Yamamoto,1 Kiyoshi Kubota,2 Mitsuhiro Okazaki,3 Akira Dobashi,3 Masayuki Hashiguchi,4 Hirohisa Doi,1 Machi Suka,5 Mayumi Mochizuki4
1Education Center for Clinical Pharmacy Practice, Showa Pharmaceutical University, Tokyo, Japan; 2Department of Pharmacoepidemiology, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tokyo, Japan; 3Education and Research Institute of Information Science, Tokyo University of Pharmacy and Life Sciences, Tokyo, Japan; 4Division for Evaluation and Analysis of Drug Information, Faculty of Pharmacy, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan; 5Department of Public Health and Environmental Medicine, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
Background: Patients have been allowed to report adverse drug reactions (ADRs) directly to the government in some countries, which would contribute to pharmacovigilance.
Objective: We started a pilot study to determine whether web-based patient ADR reporting would work in Japan. This article aims to describe the characteristics of the patient reporters, and to clarify patient views and experiences of reporting.
Methods: Patients who submitted online ADR reports were contacted to respond to an ADR reporting questionnaire; only consenting reporters were included. Subjects with multiple responses were excluded from analysis. The questionnaire consisted of both closed and open questions. Questionnaire responses were examined using Pearson’s chi-squared test.
Results: A total of 220 web-based ADR reports were collected from January to December 2011; questionnaires were sent to 190 reporters, excluding those who gave multiple reports and those that refused to be contacted. Responses were obtained from 94 individuals (effective response rate: 49.5%). The median respondent age was 46.0 years. Sixty-three respondents found out about this pilot study on the Internet (67.0%). The numbers of respondents claiming that they had difficulty recalling the time/date of ADR occurrence were 16 patient reporters and three non-patient reporters. The number of reporters who found it difficult to complete the online reporting form was 22 patients (26.2%) and one non-patient (10%). Fifty-seven respondents (60.6%) expected feedback after reporting and many respondents wanted to know the process of ADR data collection and related information. Seventy-three respondents (77.7%) stated that they would report ADRs again in future.
Conclusion: Throughout the entire questionnaire, online patient ADR reporting was received with a forward-looking, positive approach. To facilitate smoother web-based reporting experiences in future, some improvements may be required in online ADR reporting forms, particularly with regard to respondent feedback.
Keywords: adverse drug reaction reporting system, patient safety, patient experience, pharmacovigilance
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]