Open Access


Read more
image01

Online Manuscript Submission


Read more
image01

Submitted Manuscript Trail


Read more
image01

Online Payment


Read more
image01

Online Subscription


Read more
image01

Email Alert



Read more
image01

Review Article | OPEN ACCESS

Patient-centered pharmacovigilance: A review

Hager Ali Saleh1 , Annie Fourrier-Règlat2, Eduard Diogéne3

1Department of Health Services Management, Faculty of Public Health and Health Informatics, Umm Al-Qura University, Mecca, Saudi Arabia; 2Université de Bordeaux, Inserm, Bordeaux Population Health Research Center, Bordeaux, France; 3Clinical Pharmacology Services, University Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

For correspondence:-  Hager Saleh   Email: hasaleh@uqu.edu.sa

Accepted: 5 October 2017        Published: 31 January 2018

Citation: Saleh HA, Fourrier-Règlat A, Diogéne E. Patient-centered pharmacovigilance: A review. Trop J Pharm Res 2018; 17(1):179-188 doi: 10.4314/tjpr.v17i1.24

© 2018 The authors.
This is an Open Access article that uses a funding model which does not charge readers or their institutions for access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) and the Budapest Open Access Initiative (http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read), which permit unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited..

Abstract

Purpose: To determine through a literature review, the current status of patients’ involvement in adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reporting.
Methods: Eighteen (18) studies which were published within the period from 2010 to 2016 were reviewed. The studies were extracted from seven databases, viz, Google Scholars, Medline, Academic Search Complete “EBSCO”, Health and Medical Complete ProQuest, Science Direct- Elsevier, SCOPUS and Wiley Online Library.
Results: The review revealed that although the reports by patients were of good quality, the patients’ awareness of, and attitude towards, ADR reporting were generally poor.
Conclusion: The results of this review suggest the need for patients’ enlightenment on ADRs reporting. Information on how to improve ADRs reporting is provided
 

Keywords: Adverse drug reaction, Patients’ reporting; Systematic review, Patient-centered pharmacovigilance

Impact Factor
Thompson Reuters (ISI): 0.6 (2023)
H-5 index (Google Scholar): 49 (2023)

Article Tools

Share this article with



Article status: Free
Fulltext in PDF
Similar articles in Google
Similar article in this Journal:

Archives

2024; 23: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10. 
2023; 22: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12. 
2022; 21: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12. 
2021; 20: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12. 
2020; 19: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12. 
2019; 18: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12. 
2018; 17: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12. 
2017; 16: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12. 
2016; 15: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12. 
2015; 14: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12. 
2014; 13: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12. 
2013; 12: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6. 
2012; 11: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6. 
2011; 10: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6. 
2010; 9: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6. 
2009; 8: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6. 
2008; 7: 
1,   2,   3,   4. 
2007; 6: 
1,   2,   3,   4. 
2006; 5: 
1,   2. 
2005; 4: 
1,   2. 
2004; 3: 
1. 
2003; 2: 
1,   2. 
2002; 1: 
1,   2. 

News Updates