Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Among Healthcare Professionals in Sri Lanka- A Cross Sectional Study.
Thilini Madhushika, Menikpurage; Jayasinghe, Sudheera Sammanthi; Liyanage, Polwaththa Gayani Chandima; Dilan Malinda, Wellappuli Arachchige; Abeykoon, Palitha.
Affiliation
  • Thilini Madhushika M; University of Ruhuna, Galle, Sri Lanka.
  • Jayasinghe SS; University of Ruhuna, Galle, Sri Lanka.
  • Liyanage PGC; University of Ruhuna, Galle, Sri Lanka.
  • Dilan Malinda WA; Teaching Hospital, Karapitiya, Sri Lanka.
  • Abeykoon P; World Health Organization, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Hosp Pharm ; 59(1): 102-109, 2024 Feb.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38223853
ABSTRACT

Objectives:

The objectives of this study were to describe the knowledge, attitudes and practices of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) reporting among healthcare professionals at Teaching Hospital Karapitiya (THK), a tertiary care hospital in Sri Lanka.

Methodology:

A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted at THK. The healthcare professionals working in THK who were available during the study period were invited to the study. A self-administered pre-tested questionnaire was administered to the participants. Respondents were evaluated for their knowledge, attitudes and practices related to ADR reporting. The data were analyzed using SPSS statistical software.

Results:

Of the total 444 respondents, 31% were doctors and 69% were nurses. The majority of respondents, 90% (n = 400) were aware of the term ADR, while 64.8% (n = 288) could correctly define it. Among the respondents, 30.8% (n = 137) knew about the types of ADR and only 15.5% (n = 70) were able to mention a drug that is banned due to ADR correctly. Among the respondents, only 38.7% (n = 172) were aware of a formal process of reporting ADR and, only 35.3% (n = 157) stated that they had seen the ADR reporting form. Further, only 33.7% (n = 150) respondents have recognized ADR during their clinical practice and only a small proportion 18.2% (n = 81) have ever reported an ADR during their practice. Regarding attitudes toward ADR reporting, overall 84.1 (n = 373) had positive attitudes toward ADR reporting, while 13.54% (n = 60) of them stayed neutral and 2.25% (n = 10) had negative attitudes toward ADR reporting.

Conclusions:

Although the majority were aware of ADR , the knowledge and practices regarding spontaneous reporting of ADR are inadequate. However, most respondents have shown a positive attitude toward ADR reporting. A sincere and sustained effort should be made by concerned bodies to enhance the healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding ADR reporting.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Observational_studies / Prevalence_studies Language: En Journal: Hosp Pharm Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Sri Lanka Country of publication: United States

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Observational_studies / Prevalence_studies Language: En Journal: Hosp Pharm Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Sri Lanka Country of publication: United States