Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39699849›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2025

Consumer views on the use of digital tools for reporting adverse drug reactions: a cross-sectional study.

Mohammed Gebre Dedefo, Renly Lim, Gizat M Kassie, Eyob Alemayehu Gebreyohannes, Nava Nikpay Salekdeh, Elizabeth Roughead, Lisa Kalisch Ellett

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Mohammed Gebre DedefoQuality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, UniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia. mohammed_gebre.dedefo@mymail.unisa.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2262-0158
Renly LimQuality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, UniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Gizat M KassieQuality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, UniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Eyob Alemayehu GebreyohannesQuality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, UniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Nava Nikpay SalekdehUniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Elizabeth RougheadQuality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, UniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Lisa Kalisch EllettQuality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, UniSA Clinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council APP2020626
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe application of digital technologies has shown benefits in enhancing pharmacovigilance activities but consumers views on the use of these tools for this purpose are not well described.

aimTo explore consumers' views on using digital tools to report adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and identify key features that consumers want in digital tools for ADR reporting.

methodAn online survey was conducted among adults who had taken medicine in the previous six-months in Australia. The development of questions was guided by the Combined Technology Acceptance Model and Theory of Planned Behaviour (C-TAM-TPB) framework. Responses to closed-ended questions were analysed using descriptive statistics and chi-square/Fisher's exact test, while free-text responses were analysed using qualitative content analysis.

resultsA total of 494 responses were included in the analysis. Eighty-seven percent of respondents preferred using digital tools for reporting ADRs. Consumers indicated a free-text space for describing ADRs (90%) as important or very important features of digital tools for ADR reporting, followed by acknowledgement of their report submission (87%) and receiving summary of previously reported ADRs (87%). Women (p < 0.001), advanced smartphone users (p < 0.001), and previous digital healthcare tool users (p = 0.017) showed higher intention to use digital tools. Consumers emphasized the importance of ease-of-use, accessibility, receiving medicine safety information, feedback, and advice for reporting ADRs via digital tools.

conclusionConsumers prefer using digital tools for reporting ADRs and place high value on features such as a free-text space for describing ADRs, acknowledgement of report submissions, and access to summaries of previously submitted reports.

Indexed as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsConsumer BehaviorDigital TechnologyDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsPharmacovigilanceAdolescentAdultAgedAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultAdverse drug reaction reporting systemsConsumer behaviorDigital technologyDrug-related side effects and adverse reactionsMobile applicationsPharmacovigilance

Identifiers

PMID39699849
PMCPMC11919981

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.