The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 18 , ISSUE 10 ( October, 2017 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices regarding Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reaction reporting among Dental Students in a Teaching Hospital, Jodhpur, India: A Cross-sectional Study

Kumar G Chhabra, Chaya Chhabra, J Jyothirmai Reddy, Shravani G Deolia, Yogesh Mittal

Citation Information : Chhabra KG, Chhabra C, Reddy JJ, Deolia SG, Mittal Y. 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 (10):964-969.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2157

Published Online: 01-03-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; The Author(s).


Abstract

Introduction

This is a cross-sectional knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAPs) study on pharmacovigilance (PV) and adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting among dental students in a teaching hospital in India.

Aim

The aim of this study was to assess the KAP of dental students regarding PV, ADR reporting, and barriers toward the same.

Materials and methods

A cross-sectional survey using a selfadministered, investigator-developed, close-ended questionnaire was conducted in an academic dental hospital in India. All prescribers including third year students, final year students, and house surgeons of the same institute were included for assessment of KAP regarding PV using 16, 8, and 8 items respectively. Data regarding barriers toward ADR reporting and demographics were also collected. Mann–Whitney U-test and Kruskal–Wallis test were applied followed by post hoc test.

Results

A total of 241 of 275 respondents participated in the study with a response rate of 87.5%. Overall, 64% reported that they had no idea about the term PV. Age was significantly associated with knowledge (p = 0.045) and attitude (p = 0.016). Barriers contributing to underreporting were difficulty in deciding whether or not an ADR has occurred (52.0%), concerns that the report may be wrong (37%), lack of confidence to discuss ADR with colleagues (29%), and almost no financial benefits (24%).

Conclusion

Participants had a comparatively favorable attitude toward PV, but their knowledge and practice need considerable improvements. This study highlights the need for appropriate dental curriculum changes and further multicentric studies to shed more light on important issues of PV among dentists in India.

Clinical significance

This study explores dentists’ knowledge, attitude, and behavior regarding PV, which could help to improve patient's safety and care. The favorable attitude of dentists is an indication that PV could be added in depth in the curriculum and in general practice. Information on barriers for reporting the ADRs could help to find possible solutions for removing the barriers precisely.

How to cite this article

Chhabra KG, Sharma A, Chhabra C, Reddy JJ, Deolia SG, Mittal Y. 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(10):964-969.

PDF Share
  1. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18820 patients. BMJ 2004 Jul;329(7456):15-19.
  2. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998 Apr;279(15):1200-1205.
  3. Importance of pharmacovigilance in Indian pharmaceutical industry – review article. Asian J Res Pharm Sci 2012;2(1):4-8.
  4. Pharmacovigilance: an overview. Mahidol Univ J Pharm Sci 2011;38(1-2):1-7.
  5. Perception on adverse drug reaction reporting by physicians working in Southern Romania. Maedica (Buchar) 2013 Mar;8(1):17-25.
  6. The safety of medicines in public health programmes: pharmacovigilance an essential tool. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006. [cited 2015 Jul 07]. Available from: http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/safety_efficacy/pharmacovigilance_B.pdf.
  7. [cited 2015 Jul 28]. Available from: http://www.pharmacovigilance.co.in .
  8. Adverse drug reactions in a south Indian hospital–their severity and cost involved. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2003 Dec;12(8):687-692.
  9. Adverse drug reaction monitoring in a secondary care hospital in South India. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2008 Feb;65(2):210-216.
  10. An evaluation of knowledge, attitude, and practice of adverse drug reaction reporting among prescribers at a tertiary care hospital. Perspect Clin Res 2011 Oct;2(4):129-136.
  11. Adverse drug reaction reporting and pharmacovigilance: knowledge, attitudes and perceptions amongst resident doctors. J Pharm Sci Res 2011;3(2):1064-1069.
  12. Adverse drug reactions reporting: attitudes and perceptions of medical practitioners. Asian J Pharm Clin Res 2009 Apr-Jun;2(2):10-14.
  13. Knowledge, attitudes, and practice of doctors to adverse drug reaction reporting in a teaching hospital in India: an observational study. J Nat Sci Biol Med 2013 Jan;4(1):191-196.
  14. CDSCO, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. 2010. [cited 2015 May 05]. Available from: http://www.cdsco.nic.in/pharmacovigilance.htm.
  15. A study of knowledge, attitudes, and practice of dental doctors about adverse drug reaction reporting in a teaching hospital in India. Perspect Clin Res 2015 Jul-Sep;6(3):144-149.
  16. Health professionals' knowledge, attitude and practices towards pharmacovigilance in Nepal. Pharm Pract (Granada) 2011 Oct-Dec;9(4):228-235.
  17. An educational intervention to assess knowledge attitude practice of pharmacovigilance among health care professionals in an Indian tertiary care teaching hospital. Int J Pharm Tech Res 2011 Apr-Jun;3(2):678-692.
  18. How do UK dentists deal with adverse drug reaction reporting? Br Dent J 2013 Apr;214(8):E22.
  19. Attitudes to adverse drug reaction reporting in the Northern region. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1992 Nov;34(5):421-426.
  20. Factors affecting physician reporting of adverse drug reactions. Drug Inf J 1986 Apr;20(2):157-164.
  21. Adverse drug reaction teaching in UK undergraduate medical and pharmacy programmes. J Clin Pharm Ther 2004 Feb;29(1):31-35.
  22. Adverse drug reactions in hospitalized pediatric patients of Saudi Arabian University Hospital and impact of pharmacovigilance in reporting ADR. Saudi Pharm J 2013 Jul;21(3):261-266.
  23. Founding an adverse drug reaction (ADR) network: a method for improving doctors spontaneous ADR reporting in a general hospital. J Clin Pharmacol 2013 Nov;53(11):1220-1225.
  24. Patient versus healthcare professional spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting: a systematic review. Drug Saf 2012 Oct;35(10):807-818.
  25. ; Norman, GR. Devising the items. In: Streiner DL, Norman GR, editors. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. PDQ Statistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995. p. 15-26.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.