Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A small economic inducement to stimulate increased reporting of adverse drug reactions—a way of dealing with an old problem?

  • Pharmacoepidemiology and Prescription
  • Published:
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the effect of a small economic inducement on the rate of spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and the attitudes of general practitioners and physicians towards reporting of ADRs.

Method

One intervention and one control county were selected for the study. Written information about the main purpose of spontaneous reporting of ADRs was personally addressed to all physicians in the two counties. The information was identical, except for the addition that during a period of 6 months two lottery tickets would be given to the receivers in the intervention area with the standard personal feedback to the reporter of the ADR. After the 6-month study period, the actual number of reported ADRs and the seriousness of the reported ADRs were assessed. To investigate the attitude towards this stimulation of reporting, a questionnaire was addressed to all physicians within the intervention area (IA).

Results

From the IA a total number of 57 ADR reports were received containing 62 suspected ADRs, 40% of which were assessed as serious reactions. From the control area (CA), 49 reports containing 50 suspected ADRs were received, 32% of which were assessed as serious reactions. The increase of ADR reports from the IA compared to the same time period the previous year was 59% as compared to an unchanged reporting from the CA. Of those responding to the questionnaire, 80% did not believe that a small economic bonus would be a useful tool to improve the reporting rate.

Conclusion

A small economic inducement is associated with an increase in the reporting of suspected ADRs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bergman U, Wiholm BE (1981) Drug-related problems causing admissions to a medical clinic. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 320:193–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Einarson TR (1993) Drug-related hospital admissions. Ann Pharmacother 27:840–883

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hallas J, Gram L, Grodum E, Damsbro N, Brösen K, Hagfeldt T (1992) Drug-related admission to medical wards: a population based survey. Br J Clin Pharmacol 33:61–68

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hallas J (1996) Drug-related hospital admission in subspecialities of internal medicine. Dan Med Bull 43:141–155

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Mannesse CK, Derkx FHM, Ridder M, Man in’t Veld A, van der Cammen T (1997) Adverse drug reactions in elderly patients as contributing factors for hospital admission: cross-sectional study. BMJ 315:1057–1058

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Schneeweiss S, Hasford J, Göttelr M, Hoffman A, Riethling A-K, Avorn J (2002) Admissions caused by adverse drug events to internal medicine and emergency departments in hospital: a longitudinal population-based study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 58:285–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. van den Bemt PM, Egberts ACG, Lenderink A W, Simons KA, van der Pol WSC, Leufkens HGM (1999) Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 55:155–158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dormann H, Muth-Selbach U, Krebs S, Criegee-Rieck M, Tegeder I, Scheinder T et al (2000) Incidence and cost of adverse drug reactions during hospitalisation. Drug Saf 22(2):161–168

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Pouyanne P, Haramburu F, Imbs JL, Béugard B (2000) Admissions to hospital caused by adverse drug reactions: cross sectional incidence study. French Pharmacovigilance Centres. BMJ 320:1036

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Mjörndal T, Danell Boman M, Hägg S, Bäckström M, Wiholm B-E, Wahlin A, Dahlqvist R (2002) Adverse drug reactions as a cause for admission to a department of internal medicine. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 11:65–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Medical Products Agency’s Code of Statutes. LVFS 2001:12

  12. Samuelsson E, Hägg S, Bäckström M, Granberg K, Mjörndal T (1996) Trombos av p-piller. Betydande underrapportering till biverkningsregistret (in Swedish). Läkartidningen 93(37):3117–3124

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Skjeldestal FE, Amundsen T, Höjbraaten E (2000) Rapportering av legemiddelinduserte helseskader til Statens legemiddlerekontrol. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 120:336–338

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lumley CE, Walker SR, Hall CG, Staunton N, Grob PR (1986) The under-reporting of adverse drug reactions in general practice. Pharm Med I:206–212

    Google Scholar 

  15. Alvarez-Requejo A, Carvajal A, Bégaud B, Moride Y, Vega T, Arias LH (1998) Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions. Estimate based on a spontaneous reporting scheme and a sentinel system. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 54:483–488

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bäckström M, Mjörndal T, Dahlqvist R (2004) Under-reporting of serious adverse drug reactions in Sweden. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 13:438–487. Published online in Wiley InterScience (http://www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI:10.1002/pds.962

    Google Scholar 

  17. Milstein JB, Falch G, Hsu JP, Knapp DE, Baum C, Dreis MW (1986) Factors affecting physician reporting of adverse drug reactions. Drug Inf J 20:157–164

    Google Scholar 

  18. Belton KJ, Lewis SC, Payne S, Rawlins MD, Wood SM (1995) Attitudinal survey of adverse drug reaction reporting by medical practitioners in the United Kingdom. Br J Clin Pharmacol 39:223–226

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Belton KJ, The European Pharmacovigilance Research Group (1997) Attitude survey of adverse drug-reaction reporting by health care professionals across the European Union. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 52:423–427

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Inman WHW (1996) Attitudes to adverse drug reaction reporting. Br J Clin Pharmacol 41:434

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Perlik F, Slanar O, Smid M, Petracek J (2002) Attitude of Czech physicians to adverse drug reaction reporting. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 58:367–369

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bäckström M, Dahlqvist R, Mjörndal T, Nordkvist Olsson T (2000) Attitudes to reporting adverse drug reactions in northern Sweden. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 56:729–732

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bäckström M, Dahlqvist R, Mjörndal T, Spigset O, Hedenmalm K, Granberg K (1995) Regionalt centrum för biverkningsrapportering i Umeå. Kort handläggning ger snabb återkoppling (in Swedish). Läkartidningen 92:148–150

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Feely J, Moriarty S, O’Connor P (1990) Stimulating reporting of adverse drug reaction by using a fee. BMJ 300:22–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Bäckström M, Mjörndal T, Dahlqvist R (2002) Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions by nurses. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 11:647–650

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Clinical Pharmacology, University Hospital of Umeå, Umeå, Sweden

    M. Bäckström & T. Mjörndal

  2. Division of Clinical Pharmacology, University Hospital of Norrland, 901 85, Umeå, Sweden

    M. Bäckström

Authors
  1. M. Bäckström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. Mjörndal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Bäckström.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bäckström, M., Mjörndal, T. A small economic inducement to stimulate increased reporting of adverse drug reactions—a way of dealing with an old problem?. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 62, 381–385 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-005-0072-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-005-0072-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation