Cited by 204Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsPharmaceutical industry and healthcarePatient Safety and Medication Errors

An Educational Intervention to Improve Physician Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

Figueiras, Adolfo, Herdeiro, Maria T., Polónia, Jorge, Gestal-Otero, Juan Jesus·2006·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Data on the adverse effects of newly marketed drugs are limited. Voluntary reporting is an important part of postmarketing surveillance but is underused by physicians. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of educational outreach visits for improving adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting by physicians. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cluster-randomized controlled trial covering all National Health System physicians in the north of Portugal, with intervention in March 2004 through July 2004, and 13 to 16 months of follow-up. A total of 1388 physicians were assigned in 4 spatial clusters to the intervention group, and 5063 were assigned in 11 clusters to the control group. INTERVENTION: One-hour educational outreach visits tailored to training needs identified in a previous study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in total number of reported ADRs and number of serious, high-causality, unexpected, and new-drug-related ADRs, using generalized linear mixed models adjusted for baseline ADR reporting, age, specialty, and work setting. RESULTS: At baseline, ADR reporting rates (per 1000 physician-years) did not differ significantly between the intervention groups and the control groups in reporting ADRs overall (7.6 vs 11.3), nor did they differ significantly by category: serious, 4.3 vs 6.0; high-causality, 5.4 vs 7.6; unexpected, 1.6 vs 3.5; and new-drug-related ADRs, 3.7 vs 3.8. (P>.05 for all comparisons). The control group had no significant increase in ADR reports during follow-up. The adjusted increase in ADR reporting rates attributable to intervention was 90.19 for total ADRs (95% confidence interval [CI], 54.51-125.87; relative risk [RR], 10.23; 95% CI, 3.81-27.51), 30.16 for serious ADRs (95% CI, 18.84-41.47; RR, 6.32; 95% CI, 2.09-19.16), 64.90 for high-causality ADRs (95% CI, 38.38-91.42; RR, 8.75; 95% CI, 3.05-25.07), 28.04 for unexpected ADRs (95% CI, 16.25-39.83; RR, 30.21; 95% CI, 4.54-200.84), and 42.17 for new-drug-related ADRs (95% CI, 21.58-62.76; RR, 8.05; 95% CI, 2.10 -30.83). The greatest difference occurred during the first 4 months after intervention, but differences remained statistically significant for 12 months. CONCLUSION: A targeted outreach program may improve high-quality reporting of ADRs among physicians.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.296.9.1086

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 46 · Cited by 204

Authors
Figueiras, A., Herdeiro, M. T., Polónia, J., & Gestal-Otero, J. J.
Affiliations
Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (ES)
Corresponding author
Figueiras, Adolfo
Venue
JAMA
Published
2006-09-06
Volume
296
Issue
9
Pages
1086
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2024856758
Cited by
204
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 12
FWCI
13.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Keywords
adverse drug reactions, voluntary reporting, post-marketing surveillance, physician training, serious adverse drug reactions, drug safety, Portugal, reporting rates, causality assessment, pharmacovigilance
MeSH terms
Adult, Education, Medical, Continuing, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Physicians, Portugal, Cluster Analysis, Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review