Awareness and Experience of Direct Healthcare Professional Communication and Risk Management Plan Educational Material among Healthcare Professionals in Finland.

IF 4.5 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Heli A Sandberg, Andreas B Sandberg, Anu J Aallos, Pauliina I Ehlers, Kari M Katajisto, Mia S Sivén
{"title":"Awareness and Experience of Direct Healthcare Professional Communication and Risk Management Plan Educational Material among Healthcare Professionals in Finland.","authors":"Heli A Sandberg, Andreas B Sandberg, Anu J Aallos, Pauliina I Ehlers, Kari M Katajisto, Mia S Sivén","doi":"10.1007/s40290-025-00580-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Additional risk minimization measures (aRMMs), such as direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) and risk management plan (RMP) educational materials, are required for certain medicinal products to mitigate the risks associated with their use. This research aimed to assess healthcare professionals' (HCPs) awareness and experiences of DHPC and RMP educational materials, identify the safety information most valued by HCPs, and determine ways to improve the processes and content of DHPCs and RMP educational materials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An open, anonymous online questionnaire was created and made available to HCPs through their respective professional associations. The Chi-squared test for independence was the primary statistical analysis method used. Content analysis of the open-ended answers was conducted by two independent coders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A sample size of 185 HCPs (32 physicians, 50 nurses, 26 MSc pharmacists, and 77 BSc pharmacists) was achieved. HCPs showed limited familiarity with aRMMs, with 45% unsure whether they had received DHPCs, 41% uncertain whether they had used RMP educational materials, and 42% unaware where to check whether a product had RMP educational material. Overall, MSc pharmacists demonstrated the highest awareness of RMP educational materials and DHPCs. In addition, 54% of HCPs felt they received insufficient safety information, and 57% desired further training in pharmacovigilance (PhV).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This research reinforces and complements our previous findings on the need to enhance PhV awareness and expertise among HCPs, particularly in areas such as adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting, additional monitoring, DHPCs, and RMP educational material. Future DHPCs and RMP educational materials should be made more distinguishable to effectively capture HCPs' attention.</p>","PeriodicalId":19778,"journal":{"name":"Pharmaceutical Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmaceutical Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-025-00580-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Additional risk minimization measures (aRMMs), such as direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) and risk management plan (RMP) educational materials, are required for certain medicinal products to mitigate the risks associated with their use. This research aimed to assess healthcare professionals' (HCPs) awareness and experiences of DHPC and RMP educational materials, identify the safety information most valued by HCPs, and determine ways to improve the processes and content of DHPCs and RMP educational materials.

Methods: An open, anonymous online questionnaire was created and made available to HCPs through their respective professional associations. The Chi-squared test for independence was the primary statistical analysis method used. Content analysis of the open-ended answers was conducted by two independent coders.

Results: A sample size of 185 HCPs (32 physicians, 50 nurses, 26 MSc pharmacists, and 77 BSc pharmacists) was achieved. HCPs showed limited familiarity with aRMMs, with 45% unsure whether they had received DHPCs, 41% uncertain whether they had used RMP educational materials, and 42% unaware where to check whether a product had RMP educational material. Overall, MSc pharmacists demonstrated the highest awareness of RMP educational materials and DHPCs. In addition, 54% of HCPs felt they received insufficient safety information, and 57% desired further training in pharmacovigilance (PhV).

Conclusions: This research reinforces and complements our previous findings on the need to enhance PhV awareness and expertise among HCPs, particularly in areas such as adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting, additional monitoring, DHPCs, and RMP educational material. Future DHPCs and RMP educational materials should be made more distinguishable to effectively capture HCPs' attention.

芬兰医疗保健专业人员对直接医疗保健专业沟通和风险管理计划教材的认识和经验。
背景和目的:某些药品需要额外的风险最小化措施(aRMMs),如直接医疗保健专业人员沟通(DHPC)和风险管理计划(RMP)教育材料,以减轻与其使用相关的风险。本研究旨在评估医疗保健专业人员(HCPs)对DHPC和RMP教材的认知和经验,确定HCPs最重视的安全信息,并确定改进DHPC和RMP教材的流程和内容的方法。方法:制作了一份公开、匿名的在线问卷,并通过各自的专业协会提供给医护人员。采用卡方检验的独立性是主要的统计分析方法。开放式答案的内容分析由两名独立编码器进行。结果:共获得185名HCPs(32名医生、50名护士、26名MSc药剂师和77名BSc药剂师)的样本。医护人员对arm的熟悉程度有限,45%的人不确定他们是否使用过dhpc, 41%的人不确定他们是否使用过RMP教材,42%的人不知道在哪里查看产品是否含有RMP教材。总体而言,理学硕士药师对RMP教材和dhpc的认知度最高。此外,54%的医护人员认为他们获得的安全信息不足,57%的人希望进一步接受药物警戒(PhV)培训。结论:这项研究加强并补充了我们之前的研究结果,即需要提高医务人员的PhV意识和专业知识,特别是在药物不良反应(ADR)报告、额外监测、dhpc和RMP教育材料等领域。未来的dhpc和RMP教育材料应该更容易区分,以有效地吸引hcp的注意。
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
Pharmaceutical Medicine
Pharmaceutical Medicine PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.00%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Pharmaceutical Medicine is a specialist discipline concerned with medical aspects of the discovery, development, evaluation, registration, regulation, monitoring, marketing, distribution and pricing of medicines, drug-device and drug-diagnostic combinations. The Journal disseminates information to support the community of professionals working in these highly inter-related functions. Key areas include translational medicine, clinical trial design, pharmacovigilance, clinical toxicology, drug regulation, clinical pharmacology, biostatistics and pharmacoeconomics. The Journal includes:Overviews of contentious or emerging issues.Comprehensive narrative reviews that provide an authoritative source of information on topical issues.Systematic reviews that collate empirical evidence to answer a specific research question, using explicit, systematic methods as outlined by PRISMA statement.Original research articles reporting the results of well-designed studies with a strong link to wider areas of clinical research.Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in Pharmaceutical Medicine may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts. Letters to the Editor are welcomed and will be considered for publication.
×
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