Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Drug Safety
Published in: Drug Safety 5/2011

01-05-2011 | Original Research Article

How Patient Reporters Identify Adverse Drug Reactions

A Qualitative Study of Reporting via the UK Yellow Card Scheme

Authors: Professor Janet Krska, Claire Anderson, Elizabeth Murphy, Anthony J. Avery, on behalf of the Yellow Card Study Collaboration

Published in: Drug Safety | Issue 5/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background: Direct reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to authorities is increasing, but questions remain about how patients identify suspected ADRs and their ability to distinguish between ADRs and other symptoms.
Objective: The aim of the study was to determine how reporters to the Yellow Card Scheme (YCS) identify ADRs.
Methods: We carried out a qualitative analysis of data from three sources, obtained as part of a larger evaluation of patient reporting to the UK YCS: responses to open questions in postal questionnaires sent to all reporters during March 2008–January 2009 (method 1); telephone interviews with a purposive sample of these reporters (method 2); and the free-text field from completed Yellow Card reporting forms submitted during October 2005–September 2007 (method 3).
Results: Method 1 involved 1362 questionnaire respondents (67.8% of the 2008 patient reporters during the study period), 1167 of whom explained how they decided they had experienced an ADR. Temporality was the most common reason for the perceived association, given by 820 (70.2%) respondents. 478 (41.0%) provided information on two or more aspects of temporality, such as onset, changes with dose and re-challenge. A total of 383 (32.8%) respondents used information sources, such as patient information leaflets or discussions with health professionals to confirm associations, including 145 (12.4%) who had also reported a temporal association.
Telephone interviews with 27 reporters (method 2) provided detailed explanations of temporal associations, particularly experiences of rechallenge, and data from 230 Yellow Card reports (method 3) showed that, although reporters are not required to explain reasons for their suspicions, 74.8% of submitted reports included a temporal association. These reports also showed evidence of causal theorizing and differential diagnosis.
Conclusion: In our study sample, most reporters to the YCS feel able to identify suspected ADRs adequately and describe processes of assessing causality that mirror those in standard algorithms designed for use by health professionals. These findings should help to reduce concerns among health professionals about the ability of patients to identify suspected ADRs when reporting to authorities.
Literature
1.
2.
Hazell L, Shakir SAW. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review. Drug Saf 2006; 29: 385–96PubMedCrossRef
3.
Hammond IW, Rich D. Consumers usurp spontaneous adverse event reporting in the United States. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2005; 14 Suppl 2.: S8–9
4.
Avery AJ, Anderson C, Bond CM, et al. Evaluation of patient reporting of adverse drug reactions to the UK ‘Yellow Card Scheme’: literature review, descriptive and qualitative analyses, and questionnaire surveys. Health Technol Assess. In press
5.
6.
Cumber S, Heffer S, Ganhdi S, et al. The Yellow Card Scheme: experience of patient reporting of adverse drug reactions five years since launch [abstract]. Pharmaco-epidemiol Drug Saf 2010; 19 Suppl. 1: S321
7.
8.
Blenkinsopp A, Wilkie P, Wang M, et al. Patient reporting of suspected adverse drug reactions: a review of published literature and international experience. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 63(2): 148–56CrossRef
9.
10.
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: 515–24PubMedCrossRef
11.
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: 1067–74PubMedCrossRef
12.
McLernon DJ, Bond CM, Hannaford PC, et al., on behalf of the Yellow Card Study Collaboration. 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: 775–88PubMedCrossRef
13.
van Grootheest K, de Graaf L, de Jong-van den Berg LTW. Consumer adverse drug reaction reporting: a new step in pharmacovigilance? Drug Saf 2003; 26: 211–7PubMedCrossRef
14.
McLernon DJ, Bond CM, Lee AJ, et al., on behalf of the Yellow Card Study Collaboration. Patient views and experiences of making adverse drug reaction reports to the Yellow Card Scheme in the UK. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. Epub 2011 Feb 17
15.
Naranjo CA, Busto U, Sellers EM, et al. A method for assessing the probability of adverse drug reactions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1981; 30: 239–45PubMedCrossRef
16.
Perry BA, Turner LW. A prediction model for polypharmacy: are older, educated women more susceptible to an adverse drug event? J Women Aging 2001; 13: 39–51PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zopf Y, Rabe C, Neubert A, et al. Women encounter ADRs more often than do men. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2008; 64: 999–1004PubMedCrossRef
18.
DeWitt JE, Sorofman BA. A model for understanding patient attributions of adverse drug reaction symptoms. Drug Inf J 1999; 33: 907–20CrossRef
19.
Hughes ML, Whittlesea CMC, Luscombe DK. Symptom or adverse drug reaction? An investigation into how symptoms are recognised as side-effects of medicines. Pharm J 2002; 269: 719–22
20.
Jarernsiripornkul N, Krska J, Richards RME, et al. Patient reporting of adverse drug reactions: useful information for pain management? Eur J Pain 2003; 7: 219–24PubMedCrossRef
21.
Mannesse CK, Derkx FHM, de Ridder MAJ, et al. Do older hospital patients recognize adverse drug reactions? Age Ageing 2000; 29: 79–81PubMedCrossRef
22.
Petrie KJ, Moss-Morris R, Grey C, et al. The relationship of negative affect and perceived sensitivity to symptom reporting following vaccination. Br J Health Psychol 2004; 9: 101–11PubMedCrossRef
23.
van Grootheest AC, de Jong-van den Berg L. Review: patients’ role in reporting adverse drug reactions. Exp Opin Drug Saf 2004; 3: 363–8CrossRef
24.
Golomb BA, McGraw JJ, Evans MA, et al. Physician response to patient reports of adverse drug effects. Drug Saf 2007; 30: 669–75PubMedCrossRef
25.
Anderson C, Krska J, Murphy A, et al., on behalf of the Yellow Card Study Collaboration. The importance of direct patient reporting of ADRs: a patient perspective. Br J Clin Pharmacol. In press
26.
Metadata
Title
How Patient Reporters Identify Adverse Drug Reactions
A Qualitative Study of Reporting via the UK Yellow Card Scheme
Authors
Professor Janet Krska
Claire Anderson
Elizabeth Murphy
Anthony J. Avery
on behalf of the Yellow Card Study Collaboration
Publication date
01-05-2011
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Drug Safety / Issue 5/2011
Print ISSN: 0114-5916
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1942
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/11589320-000000000-00000

Other articles of this Issue 5/2011

Drug Safety 5/2011 Go to the issue

Meeting Report

Novel Approaches to Assessing Cardiac Safety —Proceedings of a Workshop

Correspondence

Drug-Induced Thrombocytopenia

Original Research Article

Mortality Rates and Causes of Death in Children with Epilepsy Prescribed Antiepileptic Drugs

Commentary

Getting Through the Quicksand of the Relationship between Drugs and Suicide

Original Research Article

Suspected Adverse Drug Reactions Reported For Children Worldwide

Current Opinion

Strategies for Quantifying the Relationship between Medications and Suicidal Behaviour