ArticleBMJ open2024
Exploring willingness to use adverse drug reaction reporting systems: a multicentre qualitative study in China based on the technology acceptance model and task-technology fit integration approach.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Consumer views on the use of digital tools for reporting adverse drug reactions: a cross-sectional study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- A real-world safety evaluation of new oral anticoagulants in elderly patients: evidence from the Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring Center of Henan Province.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting systems are critical for monitoring and managing drug safety. However, various factors influence the willingness to use these systems. This study aimed to investigate the willingness to use ADR reporting systems through an integrated model of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and Task-Technology Fit (TTF) theory, conducting a multicentre qualitative study from the user's perspective.
methodsThis study used qualitative research methods, including in-depth interviews with clinicians, nurses, pharmacists and administrators who reported ADRs through the National Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring System (NADRMS) and the China Hospital Pharmacovigilance System (CHPS). The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using QDA Miner software for data management and thematic analysis.
resultsEighteen healthcare workers from five healthcare organisations participated in the study. They found the ease of use and usefulness of the current NADRMS and CHPS to be acceptable. The essential technical requirements identified included accuracy, standardisation, timeliness and confidentiality. However, challenges such as inaccurate information capture, unstable interfacing with medical record systems, low reporting efficiency and lack of data sharing were highlighted. Overall, front-line healthcare workers exhibited a generally negative attitude towards using NADRMS and CHPS, driven more by necessity than preference. Factors influencing their willingness to use these systems included ease of use, practicality, risk perception and social impact, with varying attitudes and requirements observed between user groups.
conclusionThis study provides practical recommendations that can be readily implemented to enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of ADR reporting systems. While front-line users in China acknowledged the systems' ease of use and usefulness, they also noted significant gaps in technological adaptation. They expressed the need for improvements in data openness and sharing, accessibility and system intelligence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.