Background: Spontaneous adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports prepared by healthcare professionals (HCPs) are the backbone of collecting post-marketing safety data. However, underreporting is a global problem creating health, economic, and ethical burden.Objectives: To determine the factors limiting ADR reporting rates from the HCPs’ point of view.Methods: A questionnaire containing 43 questions evaluating sociodemographic characteristics, pharmacovigilance knowledge and activities, and prescription behaviors was prepared on “surveymonkey.com.” The link was distributed mainly by professional organizations.Results: Although this survey aimed to reach all HCPs, most of the respondents were physicians and nurses. Of the 259 (69.6%) participants who encountered ADR at least once, only 105 (40.5%) reported ADR. The term “pharmacovigilance” was heard for the first time in this survey by 35.5% (n = 132) of the participants. Only 34.7% (n = 129) of the participants knew where to find the ADR reporting form, and 25.5% (n = 95) had previously filled the form and/or read it. Only 28.5% (n = 106) of the participants were aware of the ADR reporting and monitoring system of their institutions and related professionals. Almost all the participants agreed that pharmacovigilance and ADR reporting training are necessary.Conclusion: The main reason for underreporting is limited pharmacovigilance knowledge of HCPs. Training activities based on the needs and preferences of HCPs and close follow-up by authorities are the main steps to improve pharmacovigilance activities.
Health literacy (HL) is considered as an interaction between the demands of health systems and the skills of individuals. The current global approach demands health professionals to be more accountable for universal precautions approach and improve communication skills, and employ strategies to confirm patients’ understanding. The aim of this study is to assess the knowledge and attitude of health care professionals (HCPs) about HL and their communication skills, and its effect on their practices, and to compare the findings among subgroups of HCPs. An online cross-sectional survey involving 29 items was developed for sociodemographic and professional characteristics and knowledge, attitude, and practices evaluation. Health care professionals reached by occupational organizations and social media platforms. Among the 277 participants that answered the questions, 184 were physicians and 78 were nurses, and 37.99% of physicians and 18.42% nurses heard about the term “HL” through this survey. Most of the participants stated their willingness to receive information/training on the subject and that knowing HL level would change their approach to and outcomes of the patients. Nurses were using a variety of methods that improve communication with patients and considered HCPs’ lack of knowledge of the concept of “HL” and their neglect of HL as obstacles to its evaluation more than physicians. These results emphasize the urgent need of initiatives to be taken to improve the awareness of HCPs of HL and the subsequent incorporation of these initiatives into the daily health care services they provide. Nurses’ awareness of HL is higher and they are already better at incorporating HL-sensitive items into their practices. Both graduate and continuing education programs need to be modified to improve HL knowledge of all HCPs and its positive effects on health care. The current structure of the roles and responsibilities of these professions needs to be improved to make it more HL sensitive.
Health literacy (HL) is a stronger predictor of an individual’s health status than income, employment status, education level, and race or ethnicity. Lower levels of HL may contribute to low uptake or less adherence to occupational health and safety (OHS) training. This study was conducted among casting factory workers who received OHS training routinely. Data on sociodemographic characteristics, OHS training, and scores of the Health Literacy Survey–European Union (HLS-EU) were collected. Of the 282 of the 600 (47%) workers surveyed, 13.5% had inadequate, 47.5% problematic, 30.9% sufficient, and 8.2% excellent HL scores. There were no statistically significant differences between workers with limited and proficient HL with respect to age group or educational level. Workers with limited HL were less satisfied with OHS training content and were less likely to identify one-on-one health and safety training sessions as training. Limited HL is a universal problem both in the general and working populations, and it may be restricting the workers understanding of OHS training. Occupational health nurses should be aware of the detrimental effects of limited HL and modify their OHS training where needed for purposes of increasing the successful adoption of safe work practices.
We report two cases of hypersensitivity syndrome/drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (HSS/DRESS) syndrome following systemic and local (via antibiotic laden bone cement (ALBC)) exposures to vancomycin. Both cases developed symptoms 2–4 weeks after the initiation of treatment. They responded to systemic corticosteroid treatment and were cured completely. Various drug groups may cause HSS/DRESS syndrome, and vancomycin-related cases do not exceed 2–5% of the reported cases. Almost all of these cases developed the syndrome following systemic exposure to vancomycin. ALBC seems to be the safer antibiotic administration method, as systemic antibiotic levels did not reach a toxic threshold level. However, local administration may not always be sufficient for bone–related/joint–related infections; these infections may require systemic antibiotics as well. As HSS/DRESS syndrome can mimic infectious diseases, it must be considered during differential diagnosis before suspecting failure of treatment and initiation of a different antibiotic course.
The particular dynamics of public health emergencies urge scientists and Ethics Committee (EC) members to change and adapt their operating procedures to function effectively. Despite having previous pandemic experiences, ethics committees were unprepared to adapt to COVID-19 pandemic challenges. This survey aims to learn and thoroughly discuss the most salient issues for ECs during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results indicate that the main problems faced by ECs were lack of/insufficient regulations, lack of data/experience/knowledge, sloppy review, poor research design, and poor adaptation to quarantine measures. Coping with factors that threaten the autonomy and independence of ECs, the ethical dilemma regarding maximizing common good versus protecting the rights and well-being of study participants, comprehending the change in the context of vulnerable populations, and redefining the role of ECs to strengthen trust in science and vaccine confidence were outstanding issues.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.