Adherence to WHO Criteria on Drug Promotion Literature: An Exploratory Study From a Tertiary Healthcare Facility in South-West Nigeria.

Introduction: In many low and middle-income countries (LMIC), drug promotional literature (DPL) remains one of the main sources of drug information for physicians. Studies conducted in many LMICs showed poor compliance to the WHO guidelines for ethical drug promotion especially in the area of information about excipients, adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions and contra-indications. These inadequacies in the information provided may mislead the prescriber with potential adverse consequences among patients using the medicines. Nigeria has a big pharmaceutical sector which is poorly regulated and we hypothesize that such unethical drug promotional practices may exist. This study therefore set out to assess compliance to the WHO ethical drug promotion (using DPL) at the Ekiti State University Teaching Hospital (EKSUTH), Ado-Ekiti, South-West Nigeria. Methodology: This was a descriptive cross-sectional study conducted in several specialist clinics of EKSUTH, Ado-Ekiti. Printed DPLs (brochures and leaflets) were collected from these clinics, collated using a pre-designed data collection form and analyzed using the WHO ethical criteria for medicinal drug promotion. Results:Two hundred seventy-five DPLs were screened A total of out of which 234 DPLs were selected after screening to after removal of duplications. Only 5 (2.1%) DPLs met all the WHO criteria. DPLs promoting antibiotics, cardiovascular drugs, and vitamins/nutritional supplements were in the majority (22.2%, 17.1%, and 11.5% respectively. Most of the DPLs had the generic (223; 95.3%) and brand (234; 100%) names, active ingredients (209; 89.3%), excipients (149; 63.7%), and indications (232; 99.1%). Information about adverse drug reactions (76; 32.5%), contra-indications (73; 31.2%), and drug interactions (46; 19.7%) was less represented. Only 59 (25.2%) DPLs had references. Fixed-dose combination drugs made up 34.6% of drugs being promoted. Conclusion:The DPLs assessed in this study had low adherence to WHO ethical drug promotion criteria especially those related to adverse drug reaction, drug interactions, and contra-indications.

Assessment of Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Among Healthcare Professionals working in Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Healthcare Facilities in Ekiti State, South-West Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) constitute a significant global healthcare challenge associated with increased morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs; however, there are concerns that ADRs are grossly under-reported by different categories of healthcare professionals (HCPs) in many countries. The main objective of this study was to assess the knowledge, attitude and practice of ADR reporting of HCPs working at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels of care in Ekiti State, Nigeria. METHODOLOGY: This was a self-administered questionnaire-based study conducted among HCPs working in Ekiti State, South-west Nigeria. The questionnaire which was adapted from ones used in similar studies was reviewed for content validity by experts in the field. Healthcare professionals (medical doctors, pharmacists, nurses, community health extension workers, and other allied HCPs) working in the 3 tiers of healthcare participated in the study. The questionnaire consisted of sections on the demographics of respondents, their knowledge, attitude and practice of ADR reporting. Data analysis was done using SPSS (version 25) employing t test, ANOVA and chi-square as appropriate with P-value < .05 accepted as being statistically significant. RESULTS: Three hundred HCPs comprising of nurses (112; 37.3%), physicians (75; 25.0%), pharmacists (53; 17.7%), community health extension workers (40; 13.3%) and others (20; 6.7%) completed the questionnaire with 166 (55.3%) of them working in tertiary healthcare facilities. Male respondents (6.3 ± 1.7; P = .003), pharmacists (7.0 ± 1.6; P < .0001), HCPs and those from tertiary centers (6.2 ± 1.7; P = .028) had higher knowledge scores. While 228 (76%) respondents had observed incidents of ADR during their professional practice, only 75 (25%) have ever reported it. Only 113 (37.7%) of respondents had seen the adverse drug reaction reporting form with only 53 (17.7%) ever using it. The reporting methods preferred by respondents were through email/internet (102; 34.0%), phone/SMS (78; 26.0%) and using the hard copy of the forms (95; 31.7%). The attitude of respondents towards ADR reporting was mainly positive. CONCLUSION: There was significant variation in the knowledge of different categories of HCPs and facility levels about ADR reporting. Encouragingly, the overall attitude of respondents towards ADR reporting was positive. Based on the above, strategies are needed to build capacity of HCPs in the area of on adverse drug reaction and its' reporting.