Pharmacovigilance and radiologists: How well do they get along?

Pharmacy practice and policy research in Türkiye: a systematic review of literature

Background

In recent decades, there has been an interest in clinical pharmacy practice in Türkiye with emerging studies in this area. Despite the recent emergence of diverse pharmacy practice studies in Türkiye, a comprehensive assessment of overall typology of studies and impact has not been conducted thus far.

Objectives

This systematic review aims to document and assess pharmaceutical policy and practice literature published within the last 5 years in Türkiye. The other aim is to summarise the expected impact of published studies on policy and practice research.

Methods

The systematic review was conducted according to the guidelines described in the PRISMA Statement. A comprehensive search approach, incorporating Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) queries and free-text terms was employed to locate pertinent literature related to pharmacy practice and policy in Türkiye. The search covered the period from January 1, 2019, to January 1, 2024, and involved electronic databases including PubMed, Medline Ovid, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Springer Link, PlosOne, and BMC.

Results

In the final grouping, 73 articles met the inclusion criteria and were selected for this review. Among the quantitative studies, majority studies were cross-sectional survey studies. Through the rigorous thematic content analysis seven research domains were developed from the selected literature: drug utilisation and rational drug use, the emerging role of pharmacist, access to medicines and generic medicines, community pharmacy practice, pharmacovigilance/adverse drug reactions, and pharmacoeconomic studies.

Conclusions

The pharmacist role is evolving; however, several challenges remain in fully realising the potential of pharmacists. These include regulatory barriers, limited public awareness of pharmacists' expanded roles, workforce capacity issues, and the need for ongoing professional development and training. Research studies are needed in the areas of generic prescribing, medicine adherence, intervention studies in community and hospital pharmacy practice, and on pharmacoeconomics and pharmacovigilance.

Defining the awareness and attitude of the clinicians through pharmacovigilance in Turkey

BACKGROUND

Pharmacovigilance (PV) is the activities and scientific studies conducted to detect, evaluate, understand or prevent adverse reactions and other drug-related problems.

AIM

To define the awareness and experiences of the clinicians on PV and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in Turkey.

METHODS

The study was cross-sectional and analytical. Data were obtained through a questionnaire. The questionnaire was sent via e-mail. The survey was sent to 2030 physicians and 670 participated.

RESULTS

The most appropriate definition of PV was correctly defined by 53.9% of the participants. The most important goal of PV was correctly defined by 54.9% of the participants, and 27.3% of the participants were aware of the Turkish Pharmacovigilance Center. Nonsurgical physicians had better PV knowledge than surgical physicians. A total of 80.9% of the physicians who encountered ADRs, filled in the ADR notification form, and 8.8% received training on how to fill in the form. PV knowledge of the clinicians was not sufficient. Although half of the physicians encountered ADRs, the rates of seeing and filling in the ADR form were low.

CONCLUSION

Few of the physicians followed the current information about PV. The results provide more comprehensive data on PV practices and ADR reporting at a national level.

Defining the awareness and attitude of the clinicians through pharmacovigilance in Turkey

BACKGROUND

Pharmacovigilance (PV) is the activities and scientific studies conducted to detect, evaluate, understand or prevent adverse reactions and other drug-related problems.

AIM

To define the awareness and experiences of the clinicians on PV and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in Turkey.

METHODS

The study was cross-sectional and analytical. Data were obtained through a questionnaire. The questionnaire was sent via e-mail. The survey was sent to 2030 physicians and 670 participated.

RESULTS

The most appropriate definition of PV was correctly defined by 53.9% of the participants. The most important goal of PV was correctly defined by 54.9% of the participants, and 27.3% of the participants were aware of the Turkish Pharmacovigilance Center. Nonsurgical physicians had better PV knowledge than surgical physicians. A total of 80.9% of the physicians who encountered ADRs, filled in the ADR notification form, and 8.8% received training on how to fill in the form. PV knowledge of the clinicians was not sufficient. Although half of the physicians encountered ADRs, the rates of seeing and filling in the ADR form were low.

CONCLUSION

Few of the physicians followed the current information about PV. The results provide more comprehensive data on PV practices and ADR reporting at a national level.

Knowledge, attitude, practice and barriers towards pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reactions reporting among healthcare professionals in Turkey: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Globally, pharmacovigilance (PV) is crucial for the patient's safety and proper use of drugs. Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reaction (ADR) is a professional obligation of every healthcare professionals (HCPs). The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze the existing literature about the knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) level of HCPs regarding PV and ADRs reporting in Turkey.

METHODS

A systematic and comprehensive articles search strategy was carried out in different seven electronic databases (PubMed, PubMed Central, Goggle Scholar, Ovid-SP, MEDLINE, Wiley Online Library, DergiPark) from 2010 to 2020. We searched to identify existing literature about cross-sectional observational studies investigating the KAP of HCPs regarding PV and ADRs reporting in different geographical regions of Turkey. Quality assessment and risk of bias were assessed among included studies.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were chosen for full-text analysis. Finally, according to inclusion criteria, seven research articles were selected for systematic review. Overall, the KAP of HCPs varies across the studies. The lack of a standardized validated measuring tool to evaluate the KAP and differences in questionnaire items were the main limitations in included studies. Around, 69.1% (range: 54.6-100%) of HCPs were not aware of the national pharmacovigilance center in Turkey. About, 37.5% (range: 7.1-75.7%) of HCPs believed that reporting of ADRs is not important and 87.5% (range: 69.3-100%) stated that they never reported ADR previously during their practice. The most frequently highlighted barriers to PV were lack of time, uncertainty and did not know where to report.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review revealed a major KAP gap in Turkey towards PV activities. Low ADR reporting practice of HCPs was a major identified issue. The creation of a mandatory unified PV education intervention for future HCPs to rationally report ADR of drugs are crucial for a better healthcare system.