Patients' motives for participating in active post-marketing surveillance

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 70-76

  Härmark, Linda ^a,b   Lie Kwie, Miguel ^c   Berm, Lisette ^b   de Gier, Han ^b   van Grootheest, Kees ^a,b  

^a Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^c Apotheek de Murene and Apotheek Stelle ^*  (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Adverse drug reaction; Intensive monitoring; Motivation; Patient; Pharmacoepidemiology; Pharmacovigilance; Web

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH; FEMALE; GENDER; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PERSONAL EXPERIENCE; POSTMARKETING SURVEILLANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUESTIONNAIRE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ADVERSE DRUG REACTION REPORTING SYSTEMS; AGED; ALTRUISM; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYPOGLYCEMIC AGENTS; INFANT; INTERNET; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOTIVATION; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PRODUCT SURVEILLANCE, POSTMARKETING; QUESTIONNAIRES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84872137143     PISSN: 10538569     EISSN: 10991557     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pds.3327     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. de Langen J, van Hunsel F, Passier A, et al. Adverse drug reaction reporting by patients in the Netherlands: three years of experience. Drug Saf 2008; 31(6): 515-24.
2. Aagaard L, Nielsen LH, Hansen EH. Consumer reporting of adverse drug reactions: a retrospective analysis of the Danish adverse drug reaction database from 2004 to 2006. Drug Saf 2009; 32(11): 1067-74. DOI: 10.2165/11316680-000000000-00000
3. McLernon DJ, Bond CM, Hannaford PC, et al. Adverse drug reaction reporting in the UK: a retrospective observational comparison of yellow card reports submitted by patients and healthcare professionals. Drug Saf 2010; 33(9): 775-88. DOI: 10.2165/11536510-000000000-00000
4. van Hunsel F, Talsma A, van Puijenbroek E, et al. The proportion of patient reports of suspected ADRs to signal detection in the Netherlands: case-control study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2011; 20(3): 286-91. DOI: 10.1002/pds.2092
5. Basch E. The missing voice of patients in drug-safety reporting. N Engl J Med 2010; 362(10): 865-9.
6. Anderson C, Krska J, Murphy E, et al. The importance of direct patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: a patient perspective. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2011; 72(5): 806-22. DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2011.03990.x
7. Directive 2010/84/EU. Official Journal of the European Union 2010. Dec 31;L. 348-74-99.
8. Regulation 1235/2010. Official Journal of the European Union 10 A.D. 2010. Dec 31;L. 348-1-16.
9. Waller P. Getting to grips with the new European Union pharmacovigilance legislation. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2011; 20(5): 544-9. DOI: 10.1002/pds.2119
10. Borg JJ, Aislaitner G, Pirozynski M, et al. Strengthening and rationalizing pharmacovigilance in the EU: where is Europe heading to? A review of the new EU legislation on pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf 2011; 34(3): 187-97. DOI: 10.2165/11586620-000000000-00000
11. Härmark L, van Puijenbroek E, Straus S, et al. Intensive Monitoring of Pregabalin Results from an Observational, Web-Based, Prospective Cohort Study Using Patients as a Source of Information. Drug Saf 2011; 34(3): 221-31. DOI: 10.2165/11585030-000000000-00000
12. Härmark L, van Puijenbroek E, van Grootheest K. Longitudinal monitoring of the safety of drugs by using a web-based system: the case of pregabalin. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2011; 20(6): 591-7. DOI: 10.1002/pds.2135
13. Härmark L, van Grootheest AC. Web-based Intensive Monitoring, from passive to active drug surveillance. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2012; 11(1): 45-51.
14. van Hunsel F, van der Welle C, Passier A, et al. Motives for reporting adverse drug reactions by patient-reporters in the Netherlands. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2010; 66(11): 1143-50.
15. O'Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. Why, and how, mixed methods research is undertaken in health services research in England: a mixed methods study. BMC Health Serv Res 2007; 7: 85.
16. Kuper A, Lingard L, Levinson W. Critically appraising qualitative research. BMJ 2008; 337: a1035. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.a1035
17. Survey Monkey. www.surveymonkey.com (accessed 05-01-2011).
18. Dutch National Institute of Public Health and the Environment. Hoe vaak komt diabetes mellitus voor en hoeveel mensen sterven eraan? 2011. http://www.nationaalkompas.nl/gezondheid-en-ziekte/ziekten-en-aandoeningen/endocriene-voedings-en-stofwisselingsziekten-en-immuniteitsstoornissen/diabetes-mellitus/omvang/ (Accessed 05-12-2011).
19. Trends in Beeld. Opleidingsniveau van de Nederlandse bevolking. http://www.trendsinbeeld.minocw.nl/grafieken/3_1_2_31.php (Accessed 05-12-2011).
20. Liberati A. Consumer participation in research and health care. BMJ 1997; 315(7107): 499.
21. Blenkinsopp A, Wilkie P, Wang M, et al. Routledge PA. Patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: a review of published literature and international experience. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007; 63(2): 148-56.