Pharmacovigilance Knowledge and Attitude of Health Professionals: A Preand Post-intervention Study

Tayseer Elsadig Albadawi¹, Tarig Mohamed Hassan¹, Tarig Mohamed Hassan¹, Elsadig Yousif Mohamed^2*, Sawsan Mustafa Abdalla² and Waqas Sami³

^*Correspondence: Elsadig Yousif Mohamed, Department of Community Medicine, Saudi Arabia, Email:

Author info »

Introduction

Pharmacovigilance is defined as “the science and activities related to the detection, assessment, understanding, and prevention of adverse effects or any other drug-related problems” [1]. The concern of Pharmacovigilance is extended recently to include herbs, complementary and alternative medicine practices, medical devices, blood products and vaccines [2-6].

Adverse drug reaction (ADR) is “anxious, undesirable and unintended effect occurs due to drug treatment at doses normally used in man for diagnosis, prophylaxis and treatment” [7].

ADRs are one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity around the world [8-10]. In the UK, 6.5% of hospital admitted patients were due to an adverse drug reaction, and 15% of patients have experience ADRs during their hospital admission [10]. Reporting of ADRs is inadequate, it has been estimated that only 6-10% of ADRs are reported [11]. However, poor results of monitoring ADRs was found in many counties around the world [12].

Studies showed knowledge gap of health professionals and medical students about adverse drug reactions and their reporting in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and Egypt [13-16].

In Sudan, the National Medicines and Poisons Board (NMPB) was formed in 2001, a law of drugs and poisons was introduced in 2009. A pharmacovigilance committee was introduced; the aim is to aware health professionals about pharmacovigilance and ADRs. The committee members visit the health facilities for this purpose, and they utilize the social media and others means of communication to achieve their objectives. In Sudan, Pharmacovigilance studies were scanty. ADRs awareness among health professionals is inadequate due to lack of knowledge on how to report ADRs [17].

Many studies conducted among health professionals elsewhere showed lack of knowledge about pharmacovigilance and ADRs reporting, so there is a need to study the knowledge of health professionals regarding PhV as they are responsible to report ADR during their practice. Attitude of health professionals towards pharmacovigilance will encourage them to report and follow ADRs. Hence this study was designed to evaluate health professionals' knowledge and attitude towards pharmacovigilance among health professionals in Ribat University Hospital, Sudan and to assess the impact of an intervention.

Methods

The design was a pre- and post-intervention to study knowledge and attitude of health professionals in Ribat University hospital, Sudan about Pharmacovigilance. The sample Size was calculated by the formula: n=Z^2*P (1-P)/d² (estimate proportion=0.10, error=0.05, CI= 0.90, Z=1.64). Sample size=98, included pharmacists, physicians, and nurses. One hundred and fifty questionnaires were distributed and 100 responded giving response rates as 77%.

Pre-intervention phase

Knowledge and attitude of health professionals towards Pharmacovigilance were assessed by using a pre-tested questionnaire after obtaining ethics approval and a written informed consent (Annex 1). The questionnaire was pre-tested in Khartoum Teaching Hospital. It included questions about pharmacovigilance and ADRs definitions, PhV purpose and components, ADRs treatment, what are the health professionals supposed to report ADRs etc.

Intervention phase

The health professionals were divided into four subgroups. Each group had the same number and categories of the sample. Each subgroup received structured information about Pharmacovigilance by either lecture sessions, pamphlets, mobile phones (SMS) or posters (Annex 2). The information disseminated was about pharmacovigilance and ADRs definitions, components, objectives, importance, who is to report ADRs and reasons behind not reporting ADSs. Two sessions were given separated by seven days and conducted by the researcher. Pamphlets were given twice in the hospital separated by one-week time. Posters were in place for one week and SMS were sent twice separated by one week. All the materials given in the intervention were prepared by the researcher.

Post-intervention phase

Reassessment of knowledge and attitude of health professionals towards Pharmacovigilance took place by using the same pre-tested questionnaire. Assessment of Knowledge and Attitude was based on Likert scale. Ten questions of knowledge were asked. If the respondent scored from five to ten correct answers was considered as having good knowledge and if scored less than five correct answers was considered as having poor knowledge. Six questions of Attitude were asked to the respondents. If the respondent scored more than three correct answers was considered as having positive attitude and if scored less than four correct answers was considered as having a negative attitude. The data were analyzed by Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) software, version 20. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used. Comparison between qualitative variables was made by using the person’s chi-square to test significance; p<0.05 was considered significant.

Results

One hundred and fifty questionnaires were distributed among the health professionals and 100 responded (response rate was 66.7%). Table (1) shows the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents. Males and females were 16% and 84% respectively. Physicians, nurses and pharmacists were 50%, 36% and 14% respectively. Less than two years of working experience was reported by 44% of the respondents, whereas 22% had experience 2-5 years and 34% had working experience more than five years.

Table 1: Socio-demographic factors (n=100).

Discussion

This research was conducted to study the Table (2) shows the comparison of the respondents’ knowledge about Pharmacovigilance in the pre and post-intervention phases. The mean pharmacovigilance knowledge in the pre-intervention phase was 45% and in the post-intervention phase was 64% (p=0.007).

Table 2: Comparison of Pharmacovigilance Knowledge in pre and post interventions

Table (3) shows the comparison of the respondents’ attitude towards Pharmacovigilance between pre and post-intervention phases. The mean healthcare professionals’ attitude towards pharmacovigilance in the pre-intervention phase was 78.0%, and in the post-intervention phase was 84.3% (p=0.254).

Table 3: Comparison of respondents’ attitude towards pharmacovigilance in the pre and post-intervention phases

Table (4) shows the relation between pharmacovigilance knowledge before intervention and social factors. Nurses, physicians and pharmacists with good knowledge were 25%, 66% and 92.9% respectively, p<0.0001. Healthcare professionals with less than 2 years of experience and had good knowledge were 69.6% and those with experience of two years and more and had good knowledge were 23 (42.6%), p=0.0001.

Table 4: Relation between pharmacovigilance knowledge and social characteristics.

Table (5) shows relation between pharmacovigilance attitude before intervention and social factors. Pharmacists who had more positive attitude towards pharmacovigilance (92.9%) compared to nurses (77.8%) and physicians (62.0%), p<0.001. Health professionals with less than 2 years of experience and had positive attitude towards pharmacovigilance were 65.2% and those with experience more than two years and had negative attitude were 42 (77.8%), p=0.048.

Table 5: Relation between pharmacovigilance attitude and social characteristics

knowledge and attitude of Pharmacovigilance among health professionals in Ribat University Hospital, Sudan. The sample size was calculated as 98 and 100 responded giving response rates as 77%. The baseline healthcare professionals’ pharmacovigilance mean knowledge was low (47%). This finding is consistent with studies conducted in Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Turkey, Nepal and China [17-22]. However, our findings are not in line with studies conducted in India, Kuwait, Lebanon, Yemen and Jordan where adequate knowledge of pharmacovigilance was observed [23-27]. According to our findings, pharmacists had better PhV knowledge followed by the physicians, the nurses acquired the least level of knowledge. This may be explained by the fact that pharmacist main goals and work experience is about drugs followed by the physicians [28].

In the current study, Pharmacovigilance mean knowledge showed significant improvement after interventions from 45% to 64% (p<0.001). These findings are consistent with studies conducted in Iran and China [29,30]. The significant improvement in Pharmacovigilance knowledge may reflect the readiness of respondents and their interest to improve their knowledge. The directions of knowledge may be different. Fang, et al. reported that both physicians and nurses had good knowledge regarding PhV: However, Physicians had better understand of what to report regarding ADRs while nurses know where to report [31]. In a study conducted in India, Rehan, et al. reported that nurses acquired better knowledge compared to physicians and pharmacists in methods of drug disposal [32]. The subjects with short experience (less than two years) had better knowledge than those with long experience (two years and more). This may be explained that the knowledge of respondents with short experience is still fresh due to short time of leaving classes, those with long experience were far from formal education and hence may forget much of their knowledge. This fact is also aggravated by the economic crises of the country which forces health professionals to work double shifts daily to be enabled to live in a good economic standard.

Our study showed that the attitude of health professionals towards pharmacovigilance was positive (78%). Health professionals with positive attitude in our study is consistent with findings from Pakistan and India [33,34]. Negative attitude towards pharmacovigilance was found among health professionals in Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia [18,35].

Insignificant improvement of attitude towards pharmacovigilance was seen after intervention, this may be due to the need for long time to change attitude not like knowledge which can be acquired in short duration. Our results reported more positive attitude of pharmacists towards pharmacovigilance compared to nurses and physicians (p<0.001) [36,37].

Positive attitude towards Pharmacovigilance was more among pharmacists (92.9%) compared to physician and nurses, 62.0% and 77.8%, p ≤ 0.001. It is also more among senior compared to junior health professionals (77.8%), 65.2%, p<0.048) [38]. Studies of knowledge and attitudes towards pharmacovigilance studies in Sudan are very few, these findings may help to establish strategies to strengthen PhV and ADRs in the country and in the other similar settings. The author observed that after collection of data the policy makers in the hospital started to hold meetings in order to strengthen PV and ADRs [39].

Conclusions

The study concluded that pharmacovigilance knowledge of health professionals is inadequate. Health professionals’ knowledge of pharmacovigilance significantly improves after intervention. Most health professionals have positive attitude towards pharmacovigilance. The pharmacists have better knowledge and more positive attitude towards pharmacovigilance compared to physicians and nurses. Pharmacovigilance knowledge is higher among junior health professionals: however, positive attitude towards Pharmacovigilance was more among senior health professionals. The study pointed towards an urgent need for enforcement of pharmacovigilance policies in Sudan National Health System. The authors encouraged hospitals managements and colleagues at other hospitals to implement PhV which is not difficult but needs commitment.

Limitations

The limitation is that, the study was conducted in one setting, so the findings can’t be generalized.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank the Deanship of Scientific Research, Majmaah University, Saudi Arabia for supporting this research. The authors would like to acknowledge the administration of Ribat University Hospital for their support and cooperation.

Authors Contributions

Proposal development, data collection and writing the draft- Tayseer Elsadig Albadawi. Proofreading the manuscript and supervising the work-Tarig Mohamed Hassan, Nahid Osman Ahmed Eisa and Sawsan Mustafa Abdalla, Data analysis- Elsadig Yousif Mohamed. All authors contributed and approved the final manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

All authors have none to declare.

References

1. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/67378/1/WHO_EDM_QSM_2002.2.pdf
2. Debbie S, Graeme L, Pierre D, et al. Pharmacovigilance of herbal medicine. J Ethnopharmacol 2012; 140:513-518.
3. Prakash B, Singh G. Pharmacovigilance: Scope for a dermatologist. Indian J Dermatol 2011; 56:490–493.
4. Shetti S, Kumar CD, Sriwastava NK, et al. Pharmacovigilance of herbal medicines: Current state and future directions. Pharmacogn Mag 2011; 7:69–73.
5. Bhanu Prakash G, Subash KR, Vijaya Chandra Reddy K, et al. Knowledge, attitude, and practice of pharmacovigilance among ayurvedic practitioners: A questionnaire survey in Andhra Pradesh, India. Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol 2016; 6:475-479.
6. https://www.sfda.gov.sa/ar/drug/resources/DocLib2/Guideline%20on%20Good%20Pharmacovigilance%20Practices%20(GVP).pdf
7. https://www.accp.com/docs/bookstore/psap/2015B2.SampleChapter.pdf
8. Bouvy JC, De Bruin ML, Koopmanschap MA. Review Epidemiology of adverse drug reactions in Europe: A review of recent observational studies. Drug Saf 2015; 38:437-453.
9. https://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/GlobalHealthRisks_report_full.pdf?ua=1
10. Tadvi NA, Shareef, SM, Naidu CDM, et al. Profile of adverse drug reactions in a rural tertiary care hospital. J Basic Clin Res 2015; 2:15-20.
11. Bouvy JC, De Bruin ML, Koopmanschap MA. Epidemiology of adverse drug reactions in Europe: A review of recent observational studies. Drug Saf 2015; 38:437–453.
12. Prakasam A, Nidamanuri A, Kumar S. Knowledge, perception and practice of pharmacovigilance among community pharmacists in South India. Pharm Pract 2012; 10:222–226.
13. Das L, Bhattacharjee P, Ghosh R, et al. Knowledge, attitude, and practice of pharmacovigilance among doctors in a tertiary care teaching hospital of Tripura.  Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol 2017; 7:2018-2023.
14. Tadvi NA, Alromaih AA, Aldahash AA, et al. Knowledge, attitude and practice of pharmacovigilance in healthcare professionals and medical students in majmaah, Saudi Arabia care centre. Int J Med Res Health Sci 2018; 7:101-107.
15. Tew MM, Teoh BC, Mohd Baidi AS, et al. Assessment of knowledge, attitude and practices of adverse drug reaction reporting among doctors and pharmacists in primary healthcare. Adv Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2016; 5:4.
16. Maharajan MK, Nair S. Pharmacy students' knowledge and perceptions about adverse drug reactions reporting and pharmacovigilance. Saudi Pharm J 2016; 24:600–604.
17. Kamal NN, Kamel EG, Mahfouz EM. Adverse drug reactions reporting, knowledge, attitude and practice of physicians towards it in El Minia University hospitals. International Public Health Forum 2014; 1:13-17.
18. Elnour AA, Ahmed AD, Yousif MA, et al. Awareness and reporting of adverse drug reactions among health care professionals in Sudan. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2009; 35:324-329.
19. Gurmesa LT, Dedefo MG. 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 Res Int 2016; 2016:1-6.
20. Toklu HZ, Uysal MK. The knowledge and attitude of the Turkish community pharmacists toward pharmacovigilance in the Kadikoy district of Istanbul. Pharm World Sci 2008; 30:556-562.
21. Jha N, Rathore DS, Shankar PR, et al. Knowledge, attitude and practice regarding pharmacovigilance and consumer pharmacovigilance among consumers at lalitpur district, Nepal. J Nepal Health Res Council 2017; 15:31-37.
22. Su C, Ji H, Su Y. Hospital pharmacists' knowledge and opinions regarding adverse drug reaction reporting in Northern China. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2010; 19:217-222.
23. Afifi S, Maharloui N, Peymani P, et al. Adverse drug reactions reporting: pharmacists' knowledge, attitude and practice in Shiraz, Iran. Int J Risk Saf Med 2014; 26:139-145.
24. Gupta SK, Nayak R, Shivaranjani R, et al. A questionnaire study on the knowledge, attitude, and the practice of pharmacovigilance among the healthcare professionals in a teaching hospital in South India. Perspectives Clin Res 2015; 6:45-52.
25. Alsaleh FM, Alzaid SW, Abahussain EA, et al. Knowledge, attitude and practices of pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction reporting among pharmacists working in secondary and tertiary governmental hospitals in Kuwait. Saudi Pharma J 2017; 25:830-837.
26. Hajj A, Hallit S, Ramia E, et al. Medication safety knowledge, attitudes and practices among community pharmacists in Lebanon. Curr Med Res Opin 2018; 34:149-156.
27. Al-Worafi YM, Kassab YW, Alseragi WM, et al. Pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction reporting: a perspective of community pharmacists and pharmacy technicians in Sana’a, Yemen. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2017; 13:1175-1181.
28. Abu Hammour K, El-Dahiyat F, Abu Farha R. Healthcare professionals knowledge and perception of pharmacovigilance in a tertiary care teaching hospital in Amman, J Eval Clin Pract 2016; 23:608-613.
29. Almandil NB. Healthcare professionals' awareness and knowledge of adverse drug reactions and pharmacovigilance. Saudi Med J 2016; 37:1359-1364.
30. Khalili H, Mohebbi N, Hendoiee N, et al. Improvement of knowledge, attitude and perception of healthcare workers about ADR, a pre-and post-clinical pharmacists' interventional study. BMJ Open 2012; 2:367.
31. Fang H, Lin X, Zhang J, et al. Multifaceted interventions for improving spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions in a general hospital in China. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol 2017; 18:49.
32. Rehan HS, Sah RK, Chopra D. Comparison of knowledge, attitude and practices of resident doctors and nurses on adverse drug reaction monitoring and reporting in a tertiary care hospital. Indian J Pharmacol. 2012; 44:699–703.
33. Bhayana K, Rehan HS, Arora T. Comparison of the knowledge, attitude, and practices of doctors, nurses, and pharmacists regarding the use of expired and disposal of unused medicines in Delhi. Indian J Pharmacol 2016; 48:725-8
34. Nisa ZU, Zafar A, Sher F. Assessment of knowledge, attitude and practice of adverse drug reaction reporting among healthcare professionals in secondary and tertiary hospitals in the capital of Pakistan. Saudi Pharma J 2018; 26:453-461.
35. Chhabra K, Sharma A, Chhabra C, et al. Knowledge, attitude, and practices regarding pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction reporting among dental students in a teaching hospital, Jodhpur, India: A cross-sectional study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017; 18:964-969.
36. Alshammari TM, Alamri KK, Ghawa YA, et al. Knowledge and attitude of health-care professionals in hospitals towards pharmacovigilance in Saudi Arabia. Int J Clin Pharm 2015; 37:1104-1110.
37. Damodar SK, Joseph J, Cheaten S, et al. Assessment of knowledge, awareness and practices among healthcare professionals about pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reactions reporting in Dharmapuri and Krishnagiri Districts of Tamilnadu, India J Pharm Prac Community Med 2018; 4:33-38.
38. Abdel-Latif MM, Abdel-Wahab BA. Knowledge and awareness of adverse drug reactions and pharmacovigilance practices among healthcare professionals in Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Pharm J 2015; 23:154-161.
39. Umar MT, Bello SO, Chika A, et al. Attitude of nurses and pharmacists on adverse drug reactions reporting in selected hospitals in Sokoto, Northwest Nigeria. J Res Pharm Pract 2016; 5:219-221.