ArticlePloS one2025
Assessment of public awareness and perspectives towards adverse drug reaction reporting system in Karachi, Pakistan.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPublic involvement in reporting adverse drug reactions (ADRs) generates a broader database on drug safety. Underreporting remains a hindrance to implementing an effective pharmacovigilance system that ultimately affects public health. Hence, it is critical to appraise the public's awareness of ADR reporting and pharmacovigilance to address the gaps for the enhancement of ADR reporting rate.
objectivesThe current study explored public knowledge and attitudes toward ADR reporting in Karachi, Pakistan.
methodsA quantitative cross-sectional study was conducted from 3rd Jan 2022 to 30th Nov 2022 using a forty-item questionnaire to evaluate public insights regarding the ADR and its reporting. Descriptive analysis was executed to determine frequencies and percentages for the respondents' baseline characteristics and the responses toward ADR reporting. The chi-square test (χ2) was applied to determine the association between the dependent and independent variables considering a p-value < 0.05 as statistically significant.
resultsThe response rate of the present study was 78.3%. More than 80% of the respondents deemed that ADR occurs only with high doses of medicines and over-the-counter medications do not cause any ADR. More than 75% of the respondents did not know that the ADR reporting form is available on the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP) website; the response varied significantly with the education (p = 0.002) and social status (p = 0.0001) of the respondents. More than 50% of the participants refused to ever report an ADR to health professionals. Physicians (n = 364; 47.7%) and pharmacists (n = 253; 33.1%) were the respondents' professed most reliable sources to whom ADR can be reported; responses varied significantly with their education (p = 0.003) and age (p = 0.001).
conclusionsThe study has provided insight into the challenges and gaps needed to improve ADR reporting in Pakistan. The outcomes revealed that the public is aware of the benefits of reporting ADRs; however, they do not realize their role and the potentially significant impact on the healthcare system by contributing to ADR reporting. Therefore, it is a need of time to educate the public on the value of reporting ADRs and implement user-friendly and accessible ADR reporting systems in patient care areas to facilitate easier reporting.
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.