Redirecting to http://dergipark.org.tr/_fragment?_hash=JqDI4ssi0eBV8nBEPp_gtvn8rdQXTsMHeGME-UocKBo&_path=id%3D1246959%26_format%3Dhtml%26_locale%3Den%26_controller%3DApp%255CController%255CSite%255CArticleController%253A%253AesiArticleStats.
Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

TÜRKİYE'NİN KUZEYBATISINDAKİ DİŞ HEKİMLERİNİN FARMAKOVIJİLANS VE ADVERS İLAÇ REAKSİYONLARININ RAPORLANMASINA İLİŞKİN BİLGİ, TUTUM VE UYGULAMALARI: KESİTSEL BİR ÇALIŞMA

Year 2023, Volume: 26 Issue: 1, 69 - 76, 26.03.2023

Gizem Çolakoğlu , Işıl Kaya Büyükbayram

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.1246959
Cited By: 1

Abstract

AMAÇ: Diş hekimleri/doktorlar tarafından kullanılan/reçete edilen ya da hastaların aldığı ilaçlar, advers ilaç reaksiyonlarına (AİR) yol açabilmektedirler. Bu yüzden, diş hekimlerinin profesyonel hayatları boyunca AİR ile karşılaşma olasılıkları göz ardı edilemez ve diş hekimlerinin AİR raporlarını spontan bildirimleri ile farmakovijilans sistemlerine katkıları, AİR’nin erken tespiti ve önlenmesinde önemli rol oynamaktadır. Bu çalışma, diş hekimlerinin farmakovijilans ve AİR raporlaması hakkında bilgi, tutum ve uygulamalarının değerlendirilmesini amaçlamaktadır.
GEREÇ ve YÖNTEMLER:
Türkiye’nin kuzeybatı bölgesinde genel diş hekimleri (GDH) ve uzman diş hekimleri (UDH) arasında, farmakovijilans ve AİR raporlaması hakkında bilgi, tutum ve uygulamalarını değerlendiren 30 soruluk bir anket, elektronik olarak dağıtılmıştır. Elde edilen veriler istatistiksel olarak analiz edilmiştir (p<0,05).
BULGULAR:
Katılımcıların büyük çoğunluğu, farmakovijilans (%64,7), AİR (%74,9) ve yan etki (%58,1) terimlerini tanımlayabilmiştir. UDH’ler, diş hekimleri/doktorlar tarafından kullanılan/reçete edilen ilaçlar ya da hastaların aldığı diğer ilaçlarla ilgili AİR’lerin, GDH’lere göre önemli ölçüde daha fazla farkındaydı. Ayrıca, bu ilaçlarla ilgili AİR farkındalığı, ≤12 yıllık deneyime sahip katılımcılar arasında anlamlı olarak daha yüksekti (p<0,05). Katılımcıların yalnızca %2,8’i (4 GDH, 6 UDH) profesyonel hayatlarında bir AİR bildirmiştir. Ancak, katılımcıların %52,5’i profesyonel hayatlarında oral mukozal AİR ile karşılaşmışlardır; bu oran UDH grubunda ve >12 yıllık deneyime sahip katılımcılarda istatistiksel olarak daha yüksekti (p<0,05).
SONUÇ:
AİR'lerin teşhisinde ve raporlanmasında diş hekimlerinin rolü, sağlık sisteminin ayrılmaz bir parçası oldukları için küçümsenmemelidir. Türkiye'de hem GDH'lerin hem de UDH'lerin AİR raporlama sistemine katkılarının iyileştirilmesi gerekmektedir. Ek olarak, AİR raporlaması diş hekimlerinin günlük pratiklerine entegre edilmelidir.

Keywords

Advers ilaç reaksiyonu diş hekimleri farmakovijilans

References

  • 1. de Ameida PDV, Johann ACBR, de Azevedo Alanis LR, de Lima AAS, Grégio AMT. Antidepressants: Side Effects in the Mouth. In: Mandeep Virdi (Editor). Oral Health Care-Pediatric, Research, Epidemiology and Clinical Practices. INTECH Open Access Publisher 2012:113-128.
  • 2. Ikeda K. Drug-Induced Oral Complications. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2017;25:127-132.
  • 3. Ouanounou A, Ng K, Chaban P. Adverse drug reactions in dentistry. Int Dent J 2020;70:79-84.
  • 4. Femiano F, Lanza A, Buonaiuto C, Gombos F, Rullo R et al. Oral manifestations of adverse drug reactions: guidelines. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2008;22:681-691.
  • 5. Shehab N, Patel PR, Srinivasan A, Budnitz DS. Emergency department visits for antibiotic-associated adverse events. Clin Infect Dis 2008;47:735-343.
  • 6. Yip J, Radford DR, Brown D. How do UK dentists deal with adverse drug reaction reporting?. Br Dent J 2013;214:E22.
  • 7. Güner MD, Ekmekci PE. Healthcare professionals' pharmacovigilance knowledge and adverse drug reaction reporting behavior and factors determining the reporting rates. J Drug Assess 2019;8:13-20.
  • 8. Karataş Y, Khan Z, Gören Özagil ES, Abussuutoğlu AB, Pelit A et al. Knowledge, attitude and practices about pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reactions among dental research assistants in a Turkish hospital: a cross-sectional study. J Health Sci Med 2020;3:367-371.
  • 9. Ozcan G, Aykac E, Kasap Y, Nemutlu NT, Sen E et al. Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Pattern in Turkey: Analysis of the National Database in the Context of the First Pharmacovigilance Legislation. Drugs Real World Outcomes 2016;3:33-43.
  • 10. Toklu HZ, Uysal MK. The knowledge and attitude of the Turkish community pharmacists toward pharmacovigilance in the Kadikoy district of Istanbul. Pharm World Sci 2008;30:556-562.
  • 11. Oguz E, Alasehirli B, Demiryurek AT. Evaluation of the attitudes of the nurses related to rational drug use in Gaziantep University Sahinbey Research and Practice Hospital in Turkey. Nurse Educ Today 2015;35:395-401.
  • 12. Vural F, Ciftci S, Vural B. The knowledge, attitude and behaviours of nurses about pharmacovigilance, adverse drug reaction and adverse event reporting in a state hospital. North Clin Istanb 2015;1:147-152.
  • 13. Shroukh WA, Shakhatreh FM, Yasein NA, Sharkas GF. A survey on the knowledge, attitudes and practices of physicians towards pharmacovigilance in Jordanian health centres. Int Health 2018;10:363-370.
  • 14. Hussain SA, Abbas AN, Habeeb SA, Abd-Ali AK, ZS Abdulrahman. Healthcare personnel's experience of reporting adverse drug reactions in Baghdad city: cross-sectional study. Int J Clin Pharm 2019;41:1307-1313.
  • 15. Hallit S, Hajj A, Shuhaiber P, Iskandar K, Ramia E et al. Medication safety knowledge, attitude, and practice among hospital pharmacists in Lebanon. J Eval Clin Pract 2019;25:323-339.
  • 16. Ergün Y, Ergün TB, Toker E, Ünal E, Akben M. Knowledge attitude and practice of Turkish health professionals towards pharmacovigilance in a university hospital. Int Health 2019;11:177-184.
  • 17. Khan SA, Goyal C, Tonpay SD. A study of knowledge, attitudes, and practice of dental doctors about adverse drug reaction reporting in a teaching hospital in India. Perspect Clin Res 2015;6:144-149.
  • 18. Torwane NA, Hongal S, Gouraha A, Saxena E, Chavan K. Awareness related to reporting of adverse drug reactions among health caregivers: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey. J Nat Accred Board Hosp Healthcare Providers 2015;2:23-29.
  • 19. Sudhakar S, Madhavan A, Balasubramani S. Attitude of dentists toward pharmacovigilance and reporting adverse drug reactions: A cross-sectional study. J Adv Clin Res Insights 2015;2:242-247.
  • 20. Ozgen ZE, Erdogmus Z. Investigation of Dentists' Opinions on Pharmacovigilance and Reporting of Adverse Effects. Dicle Med J 2021;48:696-702.
  • 21. Şencan MN, Özyazıcı T. Dentists’ Knowledge On Pharmacovigilance: A Preliminary Study in Istanbul. Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Pharmacy 2021;41:1-8.
  • 22. Jadhav A, Chandrikapure A, Tarte P. Pharmacovigilance in dental practice: A study to evaluate knowledge, attitude and practices (KAP) of reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADR) among dental practitioner in a city of central region of Maharashtra, India. MedPulse-International Journal of Dentistry 2017;2:14-18.
  • 23. Bishen KA, Anil B, Madhusudan A. A study on knowledge, attitude and practices of private dental practioners regarding pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction reporting in Jodhpur City, India. European Journal of Biomedical 2018;5:652-657.
  • 24. Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A, Polo´nia J, Gestal-Otero JJ. Influence of pharmacists’ attitudes on adverse drug reaction reporting: a case–control study in Portugal. Drug Saf 2006;29:331-340.
  • 25. Teoh L, Moses G, McCullough MJ. A review and guide to drug-associated oral adverse effects-Dental, salivary and neurosensory reactions. Part 1. J Oral Pathol Med 2019;48:626-636.
  • 26. Seymour RA, Meechan JG, Yates M. Pharmacology and dental therapeutics. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1999.
  • 27. World Health Organization. Safety of medicines: a guide to detecting and reporting adverse drug reactions: why health professionals need to take action. Geneva: World Health Organization 2002.
  • 28. Ribeiro-Vaz I, Santos CC, Cruz-Correia R. Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches. Rev Saude Publica 2016;50:14.
  • 29. Ganesan S, Sandhiya S, Reddy KC, Subrahmanyam DK, Adithan C. The Impact of the Educational Intervention on Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Pharmacovigilance toward Adverse Drug Reactions Reporting among Health-care Professionals in a Tertiary Care Hospital in South India. J Nat Sci Biol Med 2017;8:203-209.
  • 30. Khan Z, Karataş Y, Rahman H. Adverse drug reactions reporting in Turkey and barriers: an urgent need for pharmacovigilance education. Ther Adv Drug Saf 2020;11:1-3.

Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Dentists Regarding Pharmacovigilance and Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions in Northwestern Turkiye: A Cross-Sectional Study

Year 2023, Volume: 26 Issue: 1, 69 - 76, 26.03.2023

Gizem Çolakoğlu , Işıl Kaya Büyükbayram

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.1246959
Cited By: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT
Objectives: The drugs commonly used/prescribed by dentists/physicians or consumed by patients may cause adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Therefore, the possibility of dentists to encounter an ADR during their professional lives cannot be underestimated and the contribution of dentists to pharmacovigilance systems by notifying spontaneous ADR reports play an important role in the early detection and prevention of ADRs. This study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes and practices of dentists regarding pharmacovigilance and ADR reporting.
Materials and Methods: A questionnaire with 30 questions evaluating knowledge, attitudes and practices of pharmacovigilance and ADR reporting among general dentists (GDs) and specialist dentists (SDs) was distributed electronically in northwestern region of Turkey. Data were statistically analyzed (p < 0.05).
Results: Most of the participants were able to define the terms of pharmacovigilance (64.7%), ADR (74.9%) and side-effect (58.1%). SDs were significantly more aware of ADRs related to the drugs used/prescribed by dentists/physicians and other drugs consumed by patients than GDs. Additionally, awareness of ADRs regarding these drugs was significantly higher among participants with ≤12 years of experience (p<0.05). Only 2.8% of participants (4 GDs, 6 SDs) reported an ADR in their professional lives. However, 52.5% of participants had encountered an oral mucosal ADR during their professional lives, which was statistically higher in the group of SDs and participants with >12 years of experience (p<0.05).
Conclusions: The role of dentists in the diagnosis and reporting of ADRs should not be underestimated since they are an integral part of the healthcare system. The contribution of both GDs and SDs to the ADR reporting system needs to be improved in Turkey. Additionally, ADR reporting should be integrated into daily practices of dentists.

Keywords

Adverse drug reaction dentists pharmacovigilance

References

  • 1. de Ameida PDV, Johann ACBR, de Azevedo Alanis LR, de Lima AAS, Grégio AMT. Antidepressants: Side Effects in the Mouth. In: Mandeep Virdi (Editor). Oral Health Care-Pediatric, Research, Epidemiology and Clinical Practices. INTECH Open Access Publisher 2012:113-128.
  • 2. Ikeda K. Drug-Induced Oral Complications. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2017;25:127-132.
  • 3. Ouanounou A, Ng K, Chaban P. Adverse drug reactions in dentistry. Int Dent J 2020;70:79-84.
  • 4. Femiano F, Lanza A, Buonaiuto C, Gombos F, Rullo R et al. Oral manifestations of adverse drug reactions: guidelines. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2008;22:681-691.
  • 5. Shehab N, Patel PR, Srinivasan A, Budnitz DS. Emergency department visits for antibiotic-associated adverse events. Clin Infect Dis 2008;47:735-343.
  • 6. Yip J, Radford DR, Brown D. How do UK dentists deal with adverse drug reaction reporting?. Br Dent J 2013;214:E22.
  • 7. Güner MD, Ekmekci PE. Healthcare professionals' pharmacovigilance knowledge and adverse drug reaction reporting behavior and factors determining the reporting rates. J Drug Assess 2019;8:13-20.
  • 8. Karataş Y, Khan Z, Gören Özagil ES, Abussuutoğlu AB, Pelit A et al. Knowledge, attitude and practices about pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reactions among dental research assistants in a Turkish hospital: a cross-sectional study. J Health Sci Med 2020;3:367-371.
  • 9. Ozcan G, Aykac E, Kasap Y, Nemutlu NT, Sen E et al. Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Pattern in Turkey: Analysis of the National Database in the Context of the First Pharmacovigilance Legislation. Drugs Real World Outcomes 2016;3:33-43.
  • 10. Toklu HZ, Uysal MK. The knowledge and attitude of the Turkish community pharmacists toward pharmacovigilance in the Kadikoy district of Istanbul. Pharm World Sci 2008;30:556-562.
  • 11. Oguz E, Alasehirli B, Demiryurek AT. Evaluation of the attitudes of the nurses related to rational drug use in Gaziantep University Sahinbey Research and Practice Hospital in Turkey. Nurse Educ Today 2015;35:395-401.
  • 12. Vural F, Ciftci S, Vural B. The knowledge, attitude and behaviours of nurses about pharmacovigilance, adverse drug reaction and adverse event reporting in a state hospital. North Clin Istanb 2015;1:147-152.
  • 13. Shroukh WA, Shakhatreh FM, Yasein NA, Sharkas GF. A survey on the knowledge, attitudes and practices of physicians towards pharmacovigilance in Jordanian health centres. Int Health 2018;10:363-370.
  • 14. Hussain SA, Abbas AN, Habeeb SA, Abd-Ali AK, ZS Abdulrahman. Healthcare personnel's experience of reporting adverse drug reactions in Baghdad city: cross-sectional study. Int J Clin Pharm 2019;41:1307-1313.
  • 15. Hallit S, Hajj A, Shuhaiber P, Iskandar K, Ramia E et al. Medication safety knowledge, attitude, and practice among hospital pharmacists in Lebanon. J Eval Clin Pract 2019;25:323-339.
  • 16. Ergün Y, Ergün TB, Toker E, Ünal E, Akben M. Knowledge attitude and practice of Turkish health professionals towards pharmacovigilance in a university hospital. Int Health 2019;11:177-184.
  • 17. Khan SA, Goyal C, Tonpay SD. A study of knowledge, attitudes, and practice of dental doctors about adverse drug reaction reporting in a teaching hospital in India. Perspect Clin Res 2015;6:144-149.
  • 18. Torwane NA, Hongal S, Gouraha A, Saxena E, Chavan K. Awareness related to reporting of adverse drug reactions among health caregivers: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey. J Nat Accred Board Hosp Healthcare Providers 2015;2:23-29.
  • 19. Sudhakar S, Madhavan A, Balasubramani S. Attitude of dentists toward pharmacovigilance and reporting adverse drug reactions: A cross-sectional study. J Adv Clin Res Insights 2015;2:242-247.
  • 20. Ozgen ZE, Erdogmus Z. Investigation of Dentists' Opinions on Pharmacovigilance and Reporting of Adverse Effects. Dicle Med J 2021;48:696-702.
  • 21. Şencan MN, Özyazıcı T. Dentists’ Knowledge On Pharmacovigilance: A Preliminary Study in Istanbul. Hacettepe University Journal of the Faculty of Pharmacy 2021;41:1-8.
  • 22. Jadhav A, Chandrikapure A, Tarte P. Pharmacovigilance in dental practice: A study to evaluate knowledge, attitude and practices (KAP) of reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADR) among dental practitioner in a city of central region of Maharashtra, India. MedPulse-International Journal of Dentistry 2017;2:14-18.
  • 23. Bishen KA, Anil B, Madhusudan A. A study on knowledge, attitude and practices of private dental practioners regarding pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reaction reporting in Jodhpur City, India. European Journal of Biomedical 2018;5:652-657.
  • 24. Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A, Polo´nia J, Gestal-Otero JJ. Influence of pharmacists’ attitudes on adverse drug reaction reporting: a case–control study in Portugal. Drug Saf 2006;29:331-340.
  • 25. Teoh L, Moses G, McCullough MJ. A review and guide to drug-associated oral adverse effects-Dental, salivary and neurosensory reactions. Part 1. J Oral Pathol Med 2019;48:626-636.
  • 26. Seymour RA, Meechan JG, Yates M. Pharmacology and dental therapeutics. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1999.
  • 27. World Health Organization. Safety of medicines: a guide to detecting and reporting adverse drug reactions: why health professionals need to take action. Geneva: World Health Organization 2002.
  • 28. Ribeiro-Vaz I, Santos CC, Cruz-Correia R. Promoting adverse drug reaction reporting: comparison of different approaches. Rev Saude Publica 2016;50:14.
  • 29. Ganesan S, Sandhiya S, Reddy KC, Subrahmanyam DK, Adithan C. The Impact of the Educational Intervention on Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Pharmacovigilance toward Adverse Drug Reactions Reporting among Health-care Professionals in a Tertiary Care Hospital in South India. J Nat Sci Biol Med 2017;8:203-209.
  • 30. Khan Z, Karataş Y, Rahman H. Adverse drug reactions reporting in Turkey and barriers: an urgent need for pharmacovigilance education. Ther Adv Drug Saf 2020;11:1-3.
There are 30 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Health Care Administration
Journal Section Original Research Articles
Authors

Gizem Çolakoğlu 0000-0002-9471-9993

Işıl Kaya Büyükbayram 0000-0002-3118-9665

Publication Date March 26, 2023
Submission Date February 3, 2023
Published in Issue Year 2023 Volume: 26 Issue: 1

Cite

EndNote Çolakoğlu G, Kaya Büyükbayram I (March 1, 2023) Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Dentists Regarding Pharmacovigilance and Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions in Northwestern Turkiye: A Cross-Sectional Study. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 26 1 69–76.

Cited By

Oropharyngeal adverse drug reactions: knowledge, attitudes, and practice (KAP) among Italian healthcare professionals and students
Frontiers in Public Health
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1572611
 Download Cover Image

Cumhuriyet Dental Journal (Cumhuriyet Dent J, CDJ) is the official publication of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry. CDJ is an international journal dedicated to the latest advancement of dentistry. The aim of this journal is to provide a platform for scientists and academicians all over the world to promote, share, and discuss various new issues and developments in different areas of dentistry. First issue of the Journal of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry was published in 1998. In 2010, journal's name was changed as Cumhuriyet Dental Journal. Journal’s publication language is English.


CDJ accepts articles in English. Submitting a paper to CDJ is free of charges. In addition, CDJ has not have article processing charges.

Frequency: Four times a year (March, June, September, and December)

IMPORTANT NOTICE

All users of Cumhuriyet Dental Journal should visit to their user's home page through the "https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/user" " or "https://dergipark.org.tr/en/user" links to update their incomplete information shown in blue or yellow warnings and update their e-mail addresses and information to the DergiPark system. Otherwise, the e-mails from the journal will not be seen or fall into the SPAM folder. Please fill in all missing part in the relevant field.

Please visit journal's AUTHOR GUIDELINE to see revised policy and submission rules to be held since 2020.