Open AccessAdverse drug reaction reporting practice and associated factors among medical doctors in government hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Author(s) -
Solomon Shiferaw Nadew,
Kidanemariam GMichael Beyene,
Solomon Worku Beza
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0227712
Subject(s) - pharmacovigilance , medicine , family medicine , public health , adverse drug reaction , thematic analysis , under reporting , cross sectional study , government (linguistics) , adverse effect , pediatrics , qualitative research , drug , nursing , psychiatry , linguistics , philosophy , pathology , social science , statistics , mathematics , sociology
Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are global public health problems. In its severe form it may cause hospital admission, morbidity and mortality. Early reporting of suspected ADRs to regulatory authorities is known to be appropriate measure toinsure health and safety of public form such adverse drug reaction of drugs. In Addis Ababa, there is limited information on ADR reporting practices among medical doctors. Hence, this study aimed to assess ADR reporting practices and associated factors among doctors in government hospitals in Addis Ababa. Methods An institution based cross-sectional mixed-methods study design was used. Data werecollected from 407 doctors using self-administered questionnaire and five key informants using semi-structured questionnaire from October 01 to December 31, 2017. Binary logistic regression and thematic analysis methods for quantitative and qualitative data analysis were used respectively. Results Only 94(27.4%) of doctors had ever reported ADRs to national pharmacovigilance center. The study showed that sex (AOR = 3.51, 95% CI: 1.76–7.03), level ofeducation (AOR = 5.01, 95% CI: 2.23–11.28), work experience (AOR = 4.59, 95% CI: 1.21–17.40), existence of ADR reporting form (AOR = 3.96, 95% CI: 1.07–14.61) and reporting to respective marketing authorization holders (AOR = 21.41, 95% CI: 5.89–77.88) were significantly associated with ADR reporting practices. Poor awareness and training on risk of under-reporting, feeling that reporting is minor, absence of appropriate reporting tools, delay and/or absence of feedback on reported ADRs, overly burdened doctors, negligence, fear of legal liabilityand communication gap were cited by key informants as barriers for reporting practice. Conclusions Adverse drug reaction reporting practice among doctors wasfound to be low. Sex, level of education, work experience, existence of reporting form and reporting to marketing authorization holderswere significantly associated with ADR reporting practice. In addition, there are gaps in availabilities of guidelines, reporting systems and structure, pre-service and in-service training, and awareness of doctors on impact of reporting. Hence, improving access to ADR reporting form, decentralize safety monitoring system, and conducting awareness training on ADR reporting are essential to improve the ADR reporting practice.