No abstract

The rate of ADRs induced by anti-infective agents in this study was 8.2%. This is higher than a standard (5%) which has been reported in other studies. This study also shows that some of the classes of anti-infective agents like anti-fungals need more attention.

This study noted that the rate of ADRs in Iran is probably as high as the rate in other parts of the world. These results indicate a need for a strong national ADR program that detects and reports adverse drug events in Iran.

BackgroundAdverse drug events (ADEs) are a major source of morbidity and mortality, estimated as the forth to sixth cause of annual deaths in the USA. Spontaneous reporting of suspected ADEs by health care professionals to a national pharmacovigilance system is recognized as a useful method to detect and reduce harm from medicines; however, underreporting is a major drawback. Understanding the barriers to ADE reporting and thereafter design of interventions to increase ADE reporting requires a systematic approach and use of theory. Since multiple theories in behavior change exist that may have conceptually overlapping constructs, a group of experts suggested an integrative framework called theoretical domains framework (TDF). This approach considers a set of 12 domains, came from 33 theories and 128 constructs, covering the main factors influencing practitioner behavior and barriers to behavior change. The aim of this study is to apply TDF approach to establish an evidence-based understanding of barriers associated with ADE reporting among nurses and pharmacists.MethodsA total of three focus group discussions were conducted; among them two consisted of nurses and one involved pharmacists. Discussions were guided by questions designed based on TDF. Transcriptions of discussions were then thematically analyzed, and detected barriers to reporting ADEs were categorized based on extracted themes.ResultsA total of 34 nurses and pharmacists attended the group discussions. Six domains were identified to be relevant to barriers of ADE reporting in hospitals. These domains included “Knowledge,” “Skills,” “Beliefs about consequences,” “Motivation and goals (intention),” “Social influences (norms),” and “Environmental constraints.” We detected several barriers to ADE reporting, such as lack of knowledge of what should be reported, fear of punishment and criticism, lack of time, lack of teamwork, and lack of active support by hospital managements and other colleagues.Based on detected barriers, “Cognitive and behavioral factors,” “Motivational factors and teamwork,” in addition to “Organizational processes and resources” could be targeted in designing appropriate interventions.ConclusionsDetection of barriers to reporting ADEs is necessary to design appropriate interventions. The TDF is a comprehensive approach that enables us to better understand barriers to behavior change in reporting ADEs.

Background Pharmacists' interventions to improve outcomes of diabetes management have been promising. However, evidence on using telephone-based interventions in pharmacy practice are limited, particularly in developing countries. Objective To evaluate the efficacy of a telephone-based intervention to improve care and clinical outcomes in type-2 diabetes. Setting A referral community pharmacy and drug information center. Method We conducted a two-armed randomized controlled trial on 100 patients with type-2 diabetes. The intervention consisted of 16 telephone calls in 3 month by a trained pharmacist working in an academic drug information center, while the control group received usual care. Before random allocation, patients attended a live education session delivered by pharmacists to learn the basics of diabetes care and to confirm the eligibility criteria. Assessments were performed at baseline, month-3 (after intervention), and month-9 (follow-up). Main outcome measure Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). Results Eighty four patient completed the trial. Baseline variables were comparable between the two groups and the baseline value of hemoglobin A1c was 8.00 ± 1.44 in the study population. HbA1c was significantly improved in both groups at month-3 (6.97 ± 1.41 vs. 7.09 ± 1.78) and remained steady at month-9 (6.96 ± 1.44 vs. 7.26 ± 1.85). Lipid profile showed small improvements in the intervention group but was not significant. The adherence score and self-care score improvement was significantly higher in the intervention group at month-3 and were maintained at month-9. Conclusion Medication adherence and self-care significantly improved in the telephone-based intervention group. However, the improvement of clinical outcomes might have been diluted due to the live diabetes education session.