BioMed Research International

BioMed Research International / 2020 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 |Article ID 8569314 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8569314

Abel Demerew Hailu, Solomon Ahmed Mohammed, "Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting in Ethiopia: Systematic Review", BioMed Research International, vol. 2020, Article ID 8569314, 12 pages, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8569314

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting in Ethiopia: Systematic Review

Academic Editor: Ronald E. Baynes
Received04 Jun 2020
Revised26 Jul 2020
Accepted31 Jul 2020
Published11 Aug 2020

Abstract

Adverse drug reactions are major global public health problems and an important cause of mortality. Problems related to medicines safety can emerge from real-life medication use due to increasing access to complex treatment of concomitant infectious and noncommunicable diseases, hence leading to a higher prevalence of drug-related problems. The objective of this review was to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice of adverse drug reaction reporting among health care professionals in Ethiopia. Relevant literatures were searched from Google Scholar, PubMed, Hinari, Web of Science, Scopus, and Science Direct using inclusion and exclusion criteria. From 133 searched studies, 13 studies were reviewed. The knowledge and attitude of health care professionals towards adverse drug reaction reporting ranged from 22.68% -60.33% and 47.22% -67.14%, with averages of 41.50% and 57.18%, respectively. While 46.93% encountered adverse drug reactions and 41.8% reported in the last 12 months. One-third (34.15%) of health care professionals do not know how to report adverse drug reactions. Fearing to report, uncertainty about the adverse drug reaction, concern about reporting generating extra work, thinking that one report does not make any difference, nonavailability of reporting forms, and lack of feedback from regulatory authority were the stated reasons for underreporting. We conclude that the knowledge, attitude, and practice of health care professionals towards spontaneous ADR reporting were low. Conducting awareness and educational training and implementation of electronic reporting can improve the ADR reporting practice.

1. Introduction

An adverse drug reaction (ADR) [1] is a response to a drug that is noxious, unintended, and which occurs at doses normally used in humans for prophylaxis, diagnosis, or therapy of disease or the modification of physiologic function [2]. Quality, efficacy, and safety assured medicines are essential in clinical practice [3]. Problems related to medicine safety can emerge from real-life medication use. Postmarketing monitoring is, therefore, an important step to detecting medicine-related problems that were not possible to identify during the pre-marketing phases [4].

ADR are major global public health problems [5] and an important cause of mortality [6]. In some countries, ADR rank among the top 10 leading causes of mortality [7]. Globally, the rate of fatal ADR in patients presenting to a hospital has been reported to range from 0.1% to 10% [8]. Studies conducted in developed countries reported that the rate of fatal ADR ranged from 0.05% to 3% of all patients admitted due to an ADR [9, 10]. A recent review of studies also found that the median proportion of ADR resulting in mortality in developing and developed countries was 1.8% and 1.7%, respectively [11].

In Ethiopia, there is increasing access to complex treatment of concomitant infectious and non-communicable diseases, leading to a higher prevalence of drug-related problems [12] due to medication errors, product quality defects, and irrational use of medicines among patients on chronic follow-up in ambulatory care clinics [13] and substantial causes of mortality rate among patients presenting to emergency departments in Ethiopia [14]. Thus, ADR monitoring is one of the main priority agendas of the government of Ethiopia because the prevention of ADR helps to minimize the consequential undesirable effects [15].

Healthcare professionals are obliged to be vigilant in detecting and reporting suspected ADR to the Ethiopian Food and Drug Administration (EFDA). This will help the administration to take action to prevent or minimize the occurrence of medicine-related injuries [16]. Besides, patients who suspect and experience adverse drug events are expected to report to health care professionals and the national medicine regulatory administration [17].

The Uppsala Monitoring Center is the international database of ADR reports and currently about 4.7 million case reports received from several national centers. However, still, it is estimated that only 6-10% of all ADR are reported. Although Ethiopia is participating in the program, its contribution to the Uppsala Monitoring Center database is very small. This is essentially due to the absence of a vibrant ADR monitoring system and also a lack of a reporting culture among healthcare workers [18, 19].

Spontaneous reporting has contributed significantly to successful pharmacovigilance. The contribution of health professionals, in this regard, to ADR databases, is enormously significant and has encouraged ongoing ascertainment of the benefit-risk ratio of some drugs as well as contributing to signal detection of unsuspected and unusual ADR previously undetected during the initial evaluation of a drug. In Ethiopia, voluntary reporting has been effective as in 2010. Despite rigorous activities performed by the EFDA, the level of awareness of health care providers towards ADR reporting was not satisfactory [20]. Evaluating their knowledge, attitude, and practice can help in devising strategies to improve reporting schemes. Hence, this review was intended to review the knowledge, attitude, and practice of health care professionals toward ADR reporting.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy

A systematic literature search was conducted in Google Scholar, PubMed, Hinari, Web of Science, Scopus, and Science Direct electronic databases for articles published between January 2000 and July 2020. Some studies were also identified through a manual Google search and the reference lists of retrieved articles. The entire searches were done from July 23 to 25, 2020, using key words “Adverse drug reaction”, “ADR”, “Knowledge”, “Attitude”, “Practice”, and in combination.

2.2. Article Selection

Studies were included in the review if they aimed to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice of health care professionals toward ADR reporting. Studies that were written in English, open access in portable document formats, and all study designs were included, while those studies published only as dissertations, abstracts, editorials, or clinical opinion, and published before 2000 were excluded.

2.3. Assessment of Methodological Quality

Methodological quality assessment was done prior to inclusion of selected articles to ensure that the data extraction met the quality criteria using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) flow diagram and guidance set out by the center for reviews and dissemination [21]. Each of the 13 studies was evaluated for each criterion/question and rated it as “Yes” with score 1; if described partly, we scored it as 0.5, then 0 for “No.” Then, the total score was calculated by summing each score and score less than 75% graded as low quality, 75% to 90% graded to moderate quality, and greater than 90% was graded as high quality. Two reviewers were involved in this review and appraised the full text of each study independently. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion.

2.4. Data Abstraction

The author, year, study design, sample size, response rate, town, knowledge, attitude, practices, and perceived factors of ADR reporting were extracted from each study using an abstraction form.

3. Result

3.1. Literature Search Results

The initial advanced search in all databases yielded 133 studies. Finally, after excluding duplicates and irrelevant studies, 13 studies were reviewed. The figure below briefly describes the flow of the study selection employed (Figure 1).

3.2. Methodological Quality of the Included Studies

The reporting quality results revealed that most studies were of high quality (, 76.93%), whereas two (15.38%) were of moderate quality and one (7.69%) were of low quality.

3.3. Studies Characteristics

All included studies (13) varied in sample size and location. Response rate and the sample size ranged from 76.1% to 100% and from 82 to 422, respectively. From these articles, all studies were cross-sectional, and nearly half were conducted in health institutions (Table 1).


S.noAuthorsSample sizeSampling methodStudy designResponse rateYearStudy area

1Angamo et al. [22]82Convenience samplingA cross-sectional study100%2012Jimma
2Bule et al. [23]130Purposive samplingA prospective cross-sectional100%2016Adama
3Nadew et al. [24]422Simple random samplingAn institution based cross-sectional mixed-methods study design96%2020Addis Ababa
4Adimasu et al. [25]214Stratified proportional random samplingHospital based cross-sectional study design100%2014Gondar
5Kefale et al. [26]280Stratified and systematic random samplingA cross-sectional study76.1%2017Addis Ababa
6Gurmesa et al. [27]133Stratified random samplingDescriptive cross-sectional study design100%2016Nekemte
7Kasa et al. [28]120Convenience samplingA cross-sectional study design95%2019Kemisse and Ataye
8Goshime et al. [29]422Simple random samplingA descriptive cross-sectional study87.9%2015Addis Ababa
9Denekew et al. [30]251Stratified and systematic random samplingA facility based cross-sectional study design93.22%2014Addis Ababa
10Gidey et al. [31]345Stratified random samplingAn institutional-based cross-sectional study84.8%2020Mekele
11Kassa et al. [32]67Purposive samplingA cross-sectional study92%2017Dessie
12Hailua et al. [33]156Convenience samplingA prospective cross-sectional study96.1%2014Gondar
13Shanko et al. [34]327Purposive samplingA hospital-based descriptive cross-sectional study91.4%2017Harar

3.4. Knowledge and Attitudes of Health Care Professionals regarding ADR Reporting

From 13 reviewed studies, one study [31] and two studies [23, 25] did not report the knowledge and attitudes of health care professionals towards ADR reporting, respectively. The knowledge and attitude of health care professionals towards ADR reporting ranged from 22.68% to 60.33% and 47.22% to 67.14%, respectively, with an average of 41.50% and 57.18% (Table 2).


S.noAuthorsKnowledge (%)Attitude (%)

1Angamo et al. [22]22.6847.22
2Bule et al. [23]33.0867.14
3Nadew et al. [24]45.5754.1
4Adimasu et al. [25]23.72NA
5Kefale et al. [26]38.0162.87
6Gurmesa et al. [27]34.1NA
7Kasa Alemu et al. [28]32.2857.69
8Goshime et al. [29]52.0663.32
9Denekew et al. [30]49.3248.1
10Gidey et al. [31]34.8451.26
11Kassa et al. [32]50.1861.38
12Hailua et al. [33]NA65.56
13Shanko et al. [34]60.3355.87

NA: not assessed.

Except for one, all studies used a structured self-administered questionnaire to assess the knowledge of health care professionals related to ADR reporting. On average, 45.91% knew the national ADR reporting system, 40.68% knew the availability of ADR reporting form, and 41.59% thought that ADR were the same as with side effects. Health professionals who knew the term pharmacovigilance ranged from 19.51% to 46.4% (Table 3).


Sr.noDescriptionAngamo et al. [20] (%)Bule et al. [21] (%)Nadew et al. [22] (%)Adimasu et al. [23] (%)Kefale et al. [24] (%)Gurmesa et al. [25] (%)Kasa et al. Alemu [26]Goshime et al. [27] (%)Denekew et al. [28] (%)Gidey et al. [29] (%)Kassa et al. [30] (%)Hailua et al. [31] (%)Shanko et al. [32] (%)

1ADR is the same as with side effect17 (20.73)30 (23.1)NA65 (30.4)114 (53.5)NA76 (66.67)323 (85.2)82 (35)127 (41.4)15 (26.3)NA99 (33.6)
2Know the term pharmacovigilance16 (19.51)NANA46 (21.5)66 (31.0)NA23 (20.18)176 (46.4)NA90 (29.3)21 (36.8)NA87 (29.5)
3Know national ADR reporting system19 (23.17)76 (58.5)284 (69.8)70 (32.7)78 (36.6)NA24 (21.05)222 (58.6)108 (46.2)121 (39.4)34 (59.7)NA175 (59.3)
4Know the availability of ADR reporting form21 (25.61)62 (47.7)47 (40.2)NA59 (27.7)31 (37.4)26 (22.81)46 (12.1)134 (68.8)NA36 (63.2)NA181 (61.36)
5ADR are well documented at the time a drug is marketed20 (24.39)25 (19.2)NANA140 (65.7)NANA220 (58)134 (57.3)99 (32.2)NANA452 (51.53)
6Adequately trained in ADR reportingNA22 (16.9)117 (28.7)NANANANANANANANANANA
7Know responsible bodyNANA51 (43.6)22 (10.3)29 (13.6)41 (30.8)35 (30.7)NA92 (39.3)98 (31.9)37 (64.9)98 (65.3)NA

NA: not assessed.

The attitude of ADR reporting among health professionals was assessed by administering a set of questions on a scale. ADR should be reported spontaneously at regular base by 78.71%, and reporting ADR is part of the duty of health professionals 83.77% of health professionals. In seven studies, 90.36 respondents agreed on the importance of reporting drug safety for the health care system. Three studies reported that 24.79% of health care professionals agreed that reporting of ADR affects patient’s confidentiality issues and fear of legal liability affects ADR reporting 46.94% (Table 4).


S.noQuestionsTypeAngamo et al. [22] (%)Bule et al. [23]
(%)
Nadew et al. [24] (%)Kefale et al. [26] (%)Kasa et al. [28] (%)Goshime et al. [29] (%)Denekew et al. [30] (%)Gidey et al. [31] (%)Kassa et al. [32] (%)Hailua et al. [33] (%)Shanko et al. [34] (%)

1ADR should be reported spontaneously at regular baseAgree44 (53.66)122 (93.8)NA186 (87.3)88 (77.20)365 (96.2)208 (88.9)207 (67.4)40 (70.1)NA218 (73.9)
Disagree38 (46.44)8 (6.2)NA27 (12.7)26 (22.80)14 (3.8)26 (11.1)100 (32.6)17 (29.9)NA77 (26.1)
2Reporting ADR is part of duty of health professionalsAgree47 (57.31)111 (85.4)388 (95.3)179 (84)100 (87.72)371 (97.9)217 (92.7)NA53 (93.0)NA179 (60.68)
Disagree35 (42.69)19 (14.6)19 (4.7)34 (16)14 (22.28)8 (2.1)17 (7.3)NA4 (7)NA116 (39.32)
3Reporting drug safety is important for the publicAgree59 (71.95)122 (93.8)NA182 (85.5)108 (94.74)366 (96.6)219 (93.6)NA52 (91.2)145 (96.7)246 (83.4)
Disagree23 (28.05)8 (6.2)NA31 (14.5)6 (5.26)13 (3.4)15 (6.4)NA5 (8.8)5 (3.7)49 (16.6)
4Reporting drug safety is important for the health care systemAgree58 (70.73)123 (94.6)258 (63.4)197 (92.5)NA376 (99.2)222 (94.9)135 (44.0)NANA216 (73.2)
Disagree24 (29.27)7 (5.4)149 (36.6)15 (7.5)NA3 (0.8)12 (5.1)172 (56.0)NANA78 (26.4)
5There is a need to be sure that ADR is related to the drug before reportingAgree70 (85.37)76 (58.5)381 (93.6)164 (77)87 (76.32)321 (90)180 (76.9)194 (63.2)NANA200 (67.8)
Disagree12 (14.63)54 (41.5)26 (6.4)49 (23)27 (23.68)38 (10)54 (23.1)113 (36.8)NANA95 (32.2)
6Only ADR of prescription drugs need to be reportedAgree17 (20.73)NANANANA78 (20.6)87 (37.2)82 (26.7)NANANA
Disagree65 (79.27)NANANANA301 (79.4)147 (62.8)225 (73.3)NANANA
7Only ADR that cause persistent disability should be reportedAgree8 (9.76)11 (8.5)NA75 (35.2)48 (42.11)49 (12.9)45 (19.2)NA20 (35.0)NA53 (17.97)
Disagree74 (90.24)119 (91.5)NA138 (64.8)66 (57.89)330 (87.1)189 (80.8)NA37 (65)NA242 (82.03)
8Reporting ADR improves quality of patient careAgree60 (73.17)NA391 (96)NA101 (88.60)NA19 (8.1)148 (48.2)52 (91.2)NANA
Disagree22 (26.83)NA16 (4)NA13 (11.40)NA215 (91.9)159 (51.8)5 (8.8)NANA
9One report of ADR makes no differenceAgree14 (17.07)NA45 (11)NA30 (22.32)NA46 (19.7)103 (33.6)38 (66.7)123 (82)NA
Disagree68 (82.93)NA362 (89)NA84 (73.68)NA178 (80.3)204 (66.4)19 (33.3)27 (18)NA
10Reporting is not useful to the patientAgree7 (8.53)NANA21 (10.1)NA14 (3.7)19 (8.1)NANANANA
Disagree75 (91.47)NANA192 (89.9)NA365 (96.3)215 (91.9)NANANANA
11Reporting creates additional work loadAgree42 (51.21)46 (35.4)55 (13.5)NA48 (42.11)NA52 (22.2)199 (64.8)NANA42 (14.2)
Disagree40 (48.79)84 (64.6)352 (86.5)NA66 (57.89)NA182 (87.8)108 (35.2)NANA253 (85.8)
12Reporting of ADR affects patient’s confidentiality issuesAgreeNANA35 (8.6)NA31 (27.19)NANANA22 (38.6)NANA
DisagreeNANA372 (91.4)NA83 (72.81)NANANA35 (61.4)NANA
13Fear of legal liability affects ADR reportingAgreeNANA209 (51.4)NA60 (52.63)NANANA21 (36.8)NANA
DisagreeNANA198 (48.6)NA54 (47.37)NANANA36 (63.2)NANA
14Reporting of ADR should be voluntaryAgreeNANANA67 (31.4)27 (23.68)200 (52.8)37 (15.8)191 (62.2)17 (29.9)27 (18)NA
DisagreeNANANA146 (68.6)87 (76.32)179 (41.2)197 (84.2)116 (37.8)40 (70.1)123 (82)NA

NA: not assessed.
3.5. Practice of Healthcare Professionals regarding ADR Reporting

The reviewed studies measured health care professionals’ practices towards ADR reporting practices by identifying whether they encountered, documented, and reported the ADR or not. Twelve studies revealed the average response of health care professionals and reported that 46.93% encountered patients with ADR in clinical practice, and 41.8% of ADR reported in the last 12 months. One-third (34.15%) of health care professionals do not know how to report ADR. Eight studies showed that 45.76% of health care professionals encountered ADR on the patient’s clinical record (Table 5).


S.noVariableTypeAngamo et al. [22] (%)Bule et al. [23] (%)Nadew et al. [24] (%)Adimasu et al. [25] (%)Kefale et al. [26] (%)Gurmesa et al. [27] (%)Kasa et al. [28] (%)Goshime et al. [29] (%)Denekew et al. [30] (%)Gidey et al. [31] (%)Kassa et al. [32] (%)Hailua et al. [33] (%)Shanko et al. [34] (%)

1Have you ever encountered patient with ADR in your clinical practice, in the last 12 months?Yes13 (15.85)84 (66.4)343 (84.3)NA82 (38.5)36 (27)34 (29.82)173 (45.6)101 (43.2)230 (74.9)12 (21.1)101 (67.3)145 (49.2)
No69 (84.15)46 (35.4)64 (15.7)NA131 (61.5)97 (73)80 (70.18)248 (54.4)133 (56.8)77 (25.1)45 (78.9)49 (32.6)149 (50.8)
2Have you ever reported the ADR?Yes0 (0)38 (29.2)94 (27.4)NA74 (90.2)14 (38.8)17 (50)28 (16.2)106 (45.3)74 (32.1)10 (83.3)43 (28.6)179 (60.68)
No82 (100)92 (70.8)249 (72.6)NA 8 (9.8)22 (61.2)17 (50)145 (83.8)128 (54.7)156 (67.9)2 (16.7)107 (71.3)115 (38.98)
3How many patients with ADR, did you see?ZeroNA46 (35.4)NANANANANANANA77 (25.1)NANANA
One8 (61.54)22 (16.9)23 (24.5)NA30 (36.6)11 (78.5)11 (9.65)5 (2.9)NA13 (4.2)NANA30 (10.17)
Two3 (23.08)18 (13.8)27 (28.7)NA30 (36.6)8 (7.02)13 (7.5)NA58 (18.9)NANA41 (13.9)
Three1 (7.69)20 (15.4)NA8 (9.8)3 (2.63)25 (14.5)NA61 (19.9)NANA34 (11.53)
Four1 (7.69)6 (4.6)44(46.8)NA9 (11.0)3 (21.4)6 (5.26)24 (13.9)NA52 (16.9)NANA20 (6.78)
AboveNA18 (13.8)NA5 (6.0)6 (5.26)106 (61.3)NA46 (15)NANA21 (7.12)
4Have you noted the ADR you encountered on the patient clinical record?Yes0 (0)59 (45.4)299 (87.2)NANANA24 (70.59)NA31 (13.24)67 (29.1)10 (83.3)NA110 (37.3)
No82 (100)71 (54.6)44 (12.8)NANANA10 (29.41)NA75 (32.05)163 (70.9)2 (16.7)NA36 (12.2)
5What kind of ADR need to be reported?Known reactionNANANA15 (7)NA20 (15)24 (21.05)NANANA24 (42.1)25 (16.6)NA
Unknown reactionNANANA35 (16.4)NA21 (15.7)52 (45.61)NANANA48 (84.2)24 (16)NA
Life-threatening reactionNANANA149 (69.6)NA33 (24.8)93 (81.58)NANANA46 (80.7)81 (54)NA
Do not nowNANANA15 (7)NA19 (13.2)NANANANANA20 (13.3)NA
6How often do you give advice to your patients on possible adverse effects of drugs you prescribed, dispensed or administered?AlwaysNANANANANANA48 (42.11)NA70 (29.9)31 (10.1)NANANA
Usually20 (24.39)43 (33.1)NANA82 (38.5)NA22 (19.3)45 (11.9)82 (35)118 (38.4)NANA101 (34.24)
Sometimes35 (42.68)79(60.8)NANA61 (28.6)NA38 (33.33)278 (73.4)17 (7.3)69 (22.5)NANA180 (61.02)
RarelyNANANANA53 (24.9)NA6 (5.26)50 (13.2)NANANANANA
Never27 (32.93)8 (6.2)NANA17 (8)NANA6 (1.6)65 (27.8)89 (29)NANA12 (4.07)
7Where did you report the reaction?HospitalNA8 (6.2)NANANANA8 (47.06)NANANA2 (20)NA102 (34.58)
Pharmaceutical companyNA2 (1.5)NANANANA1 (5.88)NANANANANA41 (13.9)
EFMHACANA11 (8.5)NANA8 (10.8)2 (14.3)5 (29.41)0 (0)NANA4 (40)NA2
DoctorNA21 (16.2)NANA10 (13.5)NANANANANANANA39 (13.22)
Never reportedNA88 (67.7)NANANANANANANANANANANA
Head pharmacyNANANANA28 (37.8)NA8 (47.06)17 (60.7)NANA4 (40)NANA
ManufacturersNANANANA6 (8.1)NANA10 (35.7)NANA0 (0)NANA
Ministry of healthNANANANA16 (21.6)NA2 (11.76)NANANA0 (0)NANA
OthersNANANANA6 (8.2)12 (85.7)NA1 (3.6)NANANANANA
8How are ADR reported?TelephoneNA14 (10.8)NANANANANANANANANA37 (24.6)182 (61.69)
PostNA56 (43.1)NANANANANANANANANA48 (32)
E-mailNA18 (13.8)NANANANANANANANANA11 (7.3)
Do not knowNA42 (32.3)NANANANANANANANANA54 (36)113 (38.64)

Others: Ethiopian pharmaceutical association, wholesales, nurse head, drug therapeutic committee; NA: not assessed.
3.6. Perceived Factors for Underreporting ADR

Only four studies assessed the perceived factors of health care professionals towards ADR reporting. The stated factors for underreporting of ADR include fear to reporting, uncertainty about the drug causing the ADR, concern about the report will generate extra work, thinking that one report does not make any difference, reporting forms are not available when needed, and lack of feedback from regulatory authority (Table 6).


S.noPerceived factorsKasa et al. [28] (%)Goshime et al. [29] (%)Denekew et al. [30] (%)Shanko et al. [34] (%)

1Concern that the report may be wrong87 (76.3)NA100 (42.7)NA
2Not knowing how to fill and report ADR57 (50)NANANA
3Uncertain of causal association between drug and ADR61 (53.51)310 (81.8)NA153 (51.9)
4Lack of time to fill report form78 (68.42)NA67 (28.6)64 (21.7)
5Reporting does not influence the treatment scheme76 (66.67)NANANA
6Forgetfulness56 (49.12)NANA40 (13.6)
7Lack of feedback33 (28.95)NANA121 (41)
8Fear of legal liability by reporting ADR59 (51.75)117 (30.9)56 (23.9)NA
9Concern that a report will generate an extra work71 (62.28)101 (26.6)61 (26.1)NA
10Belief that only safe drugs are marketed80 (70.17)NA80 (34.2)NA
11Thinking that one report does not make any difference75 (65.78)49 (12.9)57 (24.4)NA
12Thinking that you may have caused a patient harm75 (69.3)NANANA
13My report is not needed/necessary90 (78.94)15 (4.0)39 (16.7)NA
14Insufficient clinical knowledge57 (50)NA99 (42.3)NA
15Reporting forms are not available when needed45 (39.48)341 (90.0)95 (40.6)159 (53.9)
16Thinking that ADR reporting is not a duty84 (73.69)NANANA
17Not knowing where to report48 (42.11)NANANA
18Other colleagues are not reporting ADR cases49 (42.99)NA84 (35.9%)NA
19No ADR reporting systemNA160 (42.2)84 (35.9)NA
20Lack of motivationNA190 (50.3)NANA

NA: not assessed.

4. Discussion

Several numbers of drugs are being come into the market every day. However, their safety remains to be a major concern for patients. In developing and developed countries, the median proportion of ADR-related mortality was 1.8% and 1.7%, respectively [11]. Meta-analysis in the United States revealed that ADR alone excluding medication errors killed over 100,000 people in 1994 and were the fourth to sixth leading cause of death [35]. In the area of pharmaceutical care, ADR monitoring mainly focuses on the detection, management, and reporting of ADR of drugs that may result from drugs that are taken in the normal dose for prevention, prophylaxis, or treatment [36]. Studies have revealed that health professionals should practice ADR reporting as it can save the lives of their patients [37].

The knowledge and attitude of health care professionals towards ADR were 41.50% and 57.18%, respectively. The study conducted by Vallano et al. (2005) reported that lack of knowledge and giving less value for the importance of ADR reporting were obstacles for ADR reporting [38]. A systematic review and meta-analysis in India reported that more than 40% had inadequate knowledge and attitude [39]. Similarly, doctors’ knowledge and attitudes were found poor [40]. This high gap might arise from a low level of knowledge of healthcare professionals in their working environment, increasing access to complex treatment [12], medication errors, product quality defects, and irrational use of medicines [13], leading to a higher prevalence of drug-related problems.

In this review, 45.91% of health professionals knew the national ADR reporting system. A large degree of variability between ADE reporting systems was found in a similar review [41]. In India, 55.6% of healthcare professionals were not aware of the existence of the pharmacovigilance program [39]. A simple ADR reporting form and system should be developed and made available throughout all health facilities.

Side effects are minor effects of drugs associated with its pharmacological properties [42]. However, 41.59% think that ADR are the same as with side effects. This may result in excessive healthcare costs through increased mortality, morbidity, and hospital admissions. Therefore, there is an urgent need to upgrade the knowledge of health professionals on different forms of unintended effects of drugs. This is helpful to health professionals to differential things to be reported from minor side effects and different complications arising from ADR.

Although 46.93% of health professionals encountered patients with ADR in clinical practice, 41.8% were reported in the last 12 months. This finding was in line with similar systematic reviews where the practices were generally poor [40], more than half [39], and 74.5% never reported any ADR to pharmacovigilance centers [39]. This showed that most of the healthcare professionals who recognized ADR did not report to the concerned body. Even though ADR reporting is the duty of health professionals and important to the general public, inadequate knowledge, attitude, unavailability of reporting, low level of motivation, and salary of healthcare professionals make them negligent to their work.

Most of the pharmacovigilance systems around the world depend on spontaneous reporting of ADR, where reports are submitted on a voluntary basis from health care professionals [38]. Underreporting of ADR by health care professionals is common in most countries. It has also remained to be a major challenge in Ethiopia. Globally, only 6–10% of all ADR have been reported [1], and there was no significant difference in the median underreporting rates for general practice and hospital-based studies [43]. This revealed that spontaneous reporting was very low. Thus, a high rate of underreporting can delay signal detection and consequently compromise the health of patients [1].

Various studies have identified that the absence of getting feedbacks from the national pharmacovigilance center, inadequate knowledge, lack of awareness about reporting of ADR cases, weak system for reporting, uncertainty on how to report, negligence, fear of legal liability, fear to reporting, lack of time, and difficulty in accessing reporting forms were the main driving factors for underreporting ADR [6, 44, 45]. The identified barriers for underreporting were in line with this review, and educational and awareness-raising programs need to be delivered to healthcare professionals by concerned bodies to improve ADR reporting.

Adverse drug reactions pose major public health, financial, and economic implications. The financial burden of ADR worsens substantially when ADR either cause or extend hospitalization [36]. Since monitoring of ADR is an integral component of patient care, all health care professionals in Ethiopia need to be alert to suspected ADR and make immediate and appropriate actions [6].

The use of electronic ADR reporting along with manual methods of ADR reporting can improve efficiency and accuracy for detecting ADRs [46]. It would also be useful to develop systems to assist healthcare professionals in completing ADR reporting within electronic health records [47]. Moreover, drug regulatory authorities, pharmaceutical companies, and academia should be proactive in the detection, documentation, and reporting of ADR [45].

Inadequate knowledge, attitude, and underreporting of ADR is a bottleneck for modern healthcare delivery, as it makes it difficult to know the accurate prevalence of ADR. Well-functioning pharmacovigilance systems allow identifying, detection, and generation of signals. This review will help stakeholders’ efforts for plan and implement strategies related to ADR reporting. As limitations, it is not surprising that the reviewed studies followed a range of nonstandardized data collection tools. Hence, the heterogeneity among studies made compression difficult. The definition of ADRs was also not clearly articulated in the original studies.

5. Conclusions

The knowledge and attitude of healthcare professionals toward spontaneous ADR reporting were low. There was also underreporting of ADR by healthcare professionals. Conducting awareness and educational training can fill the observed gap in knowledge and attitude. Simplification of the ADR reporting process, improving access to ADR reporting form, and implementation of electronic reporting combined with other methods for ADR reporting can improve the efficiency of the ADR reporting practice.

Acronyms

ADR:Adverse drug reactions
EFDA:Ethiopian Food and Drug Administration.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Wollo University and Dessie Health Sciences College.

References

  1. S. Hanafi, H. Torkamandi, A. Hayatshahi, K. Gholami, and M. Javadi, “Knowledge, attitudes and practice of nurse regarding adverse drug reaction reporting,” Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 21–25, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  2. World Health Organization, WHO Guide Lines on Safety Monitoring of Herbal Medicines in Pharmacovigilance Systems, World Health Organization, 2004, July 2020, https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43034.
  3. Organization WH, The Selection of Essential Medicines, World Health Organization, 2002, July 2020, https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/67375/WHO_EDM_2002.2_eng.pdf.
  4. Y. Ji, H. Ying, P. Dews et al., “A potential causal association mining algorithm for screening adverse drug reactions in postmarketing surveillance,” IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 428–437, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. R. A. Kamtane and V. Jayawardhani, “Knowledge, attitude and perception of physicians towards adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting: a pharmacoepidemiological study,” Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 210–214, 2012. View at: Google Scholar
  6. P. Pouyanne, F. Haramburu, J. L. Imbs, and B. Bégaud, “Admissions to hospital caused by adverse drug reactions: cross sectional incidence study,” BMJ, vol. 320, no. 7241, p. 1036, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. Pharmacovigilance, WHO, Ensuring the safe use of medicines, WHO policy perspective of medicine, WHO, Geneva, 2004.
  8. Y. C. Chen, J. S. Fan, T. F. Hsu et al., “Detection of patients presenting with adverse drug events in the emergency department,” Internal Medicine Journal, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 651–657, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. K. Wester, A. K. Jönsson, O. Spigset, H. Druid, and S. Hägg, “Incidence of fatal adverse drug reactions: a population based study,” British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 573–579, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. J. C. Bouvy, M. L. De Bruin, and M. A. Koopmanschap, “Epidemiology of adverse drug reactions in Europe: a review of recent observational studies,” Drug Safety, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 437–453, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. M. R. Hodgkinson, N. J. Dirnbauer, and I. Larmour, “Identification of adverse drug reactions using the ICD-10 Australian modification clinical coding surveillance,” Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 19–23, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. G. T. Tegegne, T. Gaddisa, B. Kefale, G. Tesfaye, and J. Likisa, Drug Therapy Problem and Contributing Factors among Ambulatory Hypertensive Patients in Ambo General Hospital, Global Journal of Medical Research, West Shoa, Ethiopia, 2015.
  13. S. Oumer, “Irrational use of medications among elderly patients in an Ethiopian referral hospital,” African Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, vol. 11, no. 15, pp. 191–194, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. C. Hunchak, S. Teklu, N. Meshkat, C. Meaney, and L. Puchalski Ritchie, “Patterns and predictors of early mortality among emergency department patients in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,” BMC Research Notes, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 605, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. S. Palaian, M. I. Ibrahim, and P. Mishra, “Health professionals' knowledge, attitude and practices towards pharmacovigilance in Nepal,” Pharmacy practice., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 228–235, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. FMHACA, Guideline for Adverse Drug Events Monitoring (Pharmacovigilance), Food, Medicine and Health Care Administration and Control Authority of Ethiopia, 3rd edition, 2014, July 2020, https://www.medbox.org/document/guideline-for-adverse-drug-events-monitoring-pharmacovigilance-ethiopia.
  17. EFDA, Guidelines for Medicine Registration in: 3rd Edition, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2014.
  18. M. Zolezzi and N. Parsotam, “Adverse drug reaction reporting in New Zealand: implications for pharmacists,” THERAPEUTICS and Clinical Risk Management, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 181–188, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  19. P. Gupta and A. Udupa, “Adverse drug reaction reporting and pharmacovigilance: knowledge, attitudes and perceptions amongst resident doctors,” Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 1064, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
  20. J. O. Fadare, O. O. Enwere, A. Afolabi, B. Chedi, and A. Musa, “Knowledge, attitude and practice of adverse drug reaction reporting among healthcare workers in a tertiary centre in Northern Nigeria,” Tropical Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, vol. 10, no. 3, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. C. Dissemination, CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care, University of York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Layerthorpe, 2009.
  22. M. T. Angamo, A. Tesfa, and N. T. Wabe, “Knowledge, attitude and practice of adverse drug reaction reporting among health professionals in Southwest Ethiopia,” TAF Preventive Medicine Bulletin, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 397–406, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. M. H. Bule, B. A. Hamido, T. S. Chala, and G. T. Kefeni, “Knowledge, attitudes and practices of healthcare professionals towards adverse drug reaction reporting in Adama hospital medical college, east Shoa zone, Oromia regional state, Ethiopia,” The Pharma Innovation, vol. 5, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  24. S. S. Nadew, K. G./. M. Beyene, and S. W. Beza, “Adverse drug reaction reporting practice and associated factors among medical doctors in government hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,” Plos One, vol. 15, no. 1, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. A. Adimasu, “Nurses knowledge related to adverse drug reaction reporting and associated factors at Felegehiwot Referral Hospital and University of Gondar Teaching Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia,” American Journal of Health Research, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 164–170, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. A. T. Kefale, B. D. Tefera, and T. T. Biru, “Knowledge, attitude and practice of healthcare professionals towards adverse drug reaction reporting at inpatient wards of tertiary hospital, Ethiopia,” Journal of Drug Delivery and Therapeutics, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 97–102, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  27. L. T. Gurmesa and M. G. Dedefo, “Factors affecting adverse drug reaction reporting of healthcare professionals and their knowledge, attitude, and practice towards ADR reporting in Nekemte Town, West Ethiopia,” Bio Med research international, vol. 2016, article 5728462, 6 pages, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. B. Kassa Alemu and T. T. Biru, “Health care professionals’ knowledge, attitude, and practice towards adverse drug reaction reporting and associated factors at selected public hospitals in Northeast Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study,” Bio Med Research International, vol. 2019, article 8690546, 11 pages, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. A. Goshime, Assessment of Knowledge, Attitude and Practices on Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting among Pharmacy Personnel Working at Community Pharmacy, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2015.
  30. A. Denekew, Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting and Affecting Factors among Health Care Providers Working in Art Clinics of Public Health Facilities in Addis Ababa City, Addis Abeba Universty, Ethiopia, 2014.
  31. K. Gidey, M. Seifu, B. Y. Hailu, S. W. Asgedom, and Y. L. Niriayo, “Healthcare professionals knowledge, attitude and practice of adverse drug reactions reporting in Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study,” BMJ Open, vol. 10, no. 2, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. B. Kassa, A. Mulu, and B. Geresu, “Health care providers knowledge, attitude and experience of adverse drug reaction reporting,” African Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, vol. 11, no. 31, pp. 362–367, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  33. W. Hailua, A. S. Bhagavathulab, E. Admassiec, I. Pateld, and T. M. Khane, “Knowledge, attitude and practices towards adverse drug reaction reporting in Gondar, Ethiopia,” Age, vol. 20, no. 30, p. 114, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  34. H. Shanko and J. Abdela, “Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of health care professionals toward adverse drug reaction reporting in Hiwot Fana Specialized University Hospital, Harar, Eastern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study,” Hospital Pharmacy, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 177–187, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. P. A. Chyka, “How many deaths occur annually from adverse drug reactions in the United States?” The American journal of medicine, vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 122–130, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. J. Lundkvist and B. Jönsson, “Pharmacoeconomics of adverse drug reactions,” Fundamental & clinical pharmacology, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 275–280, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. JFDA, Guidelines for Detecting & Reporting Adverse Drug Reactions: Individual Case Safety Reports for Healthcare Professionals, Rational Drug Use and Pharmacovigilance Department, Jordan Food and Drug Administration, 2014, May 2020. Available at: http://www.who-umc.org/media/1079/jordan.pdf.
  38. A. Vallano, G. Cereza, C. Pedròs et al., “Obstacles and solutions for spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions in the hospital,” British journal of clinical pharmacology., vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 653–658, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. A. S. Bhagavathula, A. A. Elnour, S. Q. Jamshed, and A. Shehab, “Health professionals’ knowledge, attitudes and practices about pharmacovigilance in India: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” PloS one, vol. 11, no. 3, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. A. R. Abubakar, N. B. Simbak, and M. Haque, “A systematic review of knowledge, attitude and practice on adverse drug reactions and pharmacovigilance among doctors,” Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science, vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 117–127, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. C. Bailey, D. Peddie, M. E. Wickham et al., “Adverse drug event reporting systems: a systematic review,” British journal of clinical pharmacology, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 17–29, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. World Health Organization, The Importance of Pharmacovigilance, World Health Organization, 2002, July 2020, https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/42493/a75646.pdf.
  43. L. Hazell and S. A. Shakir, “Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions,” Drug Safety, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 385–396, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. R. Al Dweik, D. Stacey, D. Kohen, and S. Yaya, “Factors affecting patient reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review,” British journal of clinical pharmacology, vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 875–883, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. F. R. Varallo, S. O. P. Guimarães, S. A. R. Abjaude, and P. C. Mastroianni, “Causes for the underreporting of adverse drug events by health professionals: a systematic review,” Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 739–747, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. M. Molokhia, S. Tanna, and D. Bell, “Improving reporting of adverse drug reactions: systematic review,” Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 1, p. 75, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  47. I. Ribeiro-Vaz, A. M. Silva, C. Costa Santos, and R. Cruz-Correia, “How to promote adverse drug reaction reports using information systems–a systematic review and meta-analysis,” BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 27, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2020 Abel Demerew Hailu and Solomon Ahmed Mohammed. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views941
Downloads319
Citations

Related articles

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.