Patient Voices in Pharmacovigilance: Understanding Adverse Drug Reactions Through Consumer Narratives

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Shatavisa Mukherjee, Siddhartha Roy, Nikhil Era
{"title":"Patient Voices in Pharmacovigilance: Understanding Adverse Drug Reactions Through Consumer Narratives","authors":"Shatavisa Mukherjee,&nbsp;Siddhartha Roy,&nbsp;Nikhil Era","doi":"10.1111/jep.70164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are unintended and harmful responses to medications. Although clinicians and researchers often focus on the clinical aspects and prevention of ADRs, consumers—the patients themselves—experience and interpret these events in personal, social, and cultural contexts. Understanding consumers' perspectives on ADRs is essential to improving communication, therapeutic decision-making, and patient safety strategies.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>This study aimed to explore consumers' views and experiences of ADRs, including their perceptions of risk, attribution of causes, and the impact on medication adherence and trust in healthcare providers.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A qualitative research design was employed. Purposive sampling was used to recruit adult participants who had experienced at least one ADR or were caregivers of someone with an ADR experience. Four focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted (<i>n</i> = 28). A semi-structured discussion guide elicited participants' personal accounts and interpretations of ADRs. Data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Six major themes emerged: (1) Understanding and Knowledge of ADRs, (2) Severity and Impact on Daily Life, (3) Trust and Communication with Healthcare Providers, (4) Self-Medication Practices and ADR Risk, (5) Emotional and Psychological Responses, and (6) Recommendations for Improved ADR Awareness and Reporting. Participants expressed anxiety about the unpredictability of ADRs, citing both mild and severe reactions. Many shared difficulties with navigating information sources, feeling that healthcare professionals sometimes minimized or overlooked their concerns. The emotional toll of ADRs ranged from worry and frustration to lowered trust in medical recommendations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Consumers' experiences of ADRs are deeply personal, often influenced by prior knowledge, trust in healthcare providers, and the perceived severity of reactions. Patient-centered communication strategies, clearer information on risks and benefits, and robust ADR reporting mechanisms are recommended to empower consumers and enhance medication safety. Understanding the consumer perspective is pivotal for healthcare policy and practice to reduce the burden of preventable ADRs and to improve patient-centered care.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70164","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are unintended and harmful responses to medications. Although clinicians and researchers often focus on the clinical aspects and prevention of ADRs, consumers—the patients themselves—experience and interpret these events in personal, social, and cultural contexts. Understanding consumers' perspectives on ADRs is essential to improving communication, therapeutic decision-making, and patient safety strategies.

Objective

This study aimed to explore consumers' views and experiences of ADRs, including their perceptions of risk, attribution of causes, and the impact on medication adherence and trust in healthcare providers.

Methods

A qualitative research design was employed. Purposive sampling was used to recruit adult participants who had experienced at least one ADR or were caregivers of someone with an ADR experience. Four focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted (n = 28). A semi-structured discussion guide elicited participants' personal accounts and interpretations of ADRs. Data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results

Six major themes emerged: (1) Understanding and Knowledge of ADRs, (2) Severity and Impact on Daily Life, (3) Trust and Communication with Healthcare Providers, (4) Self-Medication Practices and ADR Risk, (5) Emotional and Psychological Responses, and (6) Recommendations for Improved ADR Awareness and Reporting. Participants expressed anxiety about the unpredictability of ADRs, citing both mild and severe reactions. Many shared difficulties with navigating information sources, feeling that healthcare professionals sometimes minimized or overlooked their concerns. The emotional toll of ADRs ranged from worry and frustration to lowered trust in medical recommendations.

Conclusion

Consumers' experiences of ADRs are deeply personal, often influenced by prior knowledge, trust in healthcare providers, and the perceived severity of reactions. Patient-centered communication strategies, clearer information on risks and benefits, and robust ADR reporting mechanisms are recommended to empower consumers and enhance medication safety. Understanding the consumer perspective is pivotal for healthcare policy and practice to reduce the burden of preventable ADRs and to improve patient-centered care.

药物警戒中的病人声音:透过消费者叙述了解药物不良反应
药物不良反应(adr)是对药物的意外和有害反应。虽然临床医生和研究人员经常关注临床方面和预防不良反应,但消费者-患者本身-在个人,社会和文化背景下经历和解释这些事件。了解消费者对不良反应的看法对于改善沟通、治疗决策和患者安全策略至关重要。目的本研究旨在探讨消费者对不良反应的看法和经历,包括他们对风险的认知、原因的归因以及对药物依从性和对医疗保健提供者的信任的影响。方法采用定性研究设计。有目的抽样用于招募至少经历过一次ADR或照顾有ADR经历的人的成年参与者。进行了4次焦点小组讨论(fgd) (n = 28)。半结构化的讨论指南引出了参与者对adr的个人描述和解释。数据逐字转录,并采用专题分析进行分析。结果主要有6个主题:(1)对不良反应的认识和认识,(2)对日常生活的严重程度和影响,(3)与医疗服务提供者的信任和沟通,(4)自我用药实践和不良反应风险,(5)情绪和心理反应,(6)提高不良反应意识和报告的建议。参与者对不良反应的不可预测性表示焦虑,并列举了轻微和严重的反应。许多人分享了导航信息源的困难,感觉医疗保健专业人员有时会最小化或忽视他们的担忧。不良反应造成的情绪损失包括担忧和沮丧,以及对医疗建议的信任度降低。消费者对不良反应的体验是非常个人化的,通常受到先前知识、对医疗保健提供者的信任和对反应严重程度的感知的影响。建议采取以患者为中心的沟通策略、更清晰的风险和益处信息以及健全的不良反应报告机制,以增强消费者的权能并加强用药安全。了解消费者的观点对于医疗保健政策和实践至关重要,以减少可预防的不良反应的负担,并改善以患者为中心的护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信