Next Article in Journal
Perspectives on Continuing Education Programs for Foundation-Level Drugstore Pharmacists in Japan
Previous Article in Journal
Can We Create a Circular Pharmaceutical Supply Chain (CPSC) to Reduce Medicines Waste?
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Public Awareness about Medicine Information, Safety, and Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) Reporting in Dammam, Saudi Arabia

1
Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Clinical Pharmacy, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 31441, Saudi Arabia
2
College of Clinical Pharmacy, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 31441, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pharmacy 2020, 8(4), 222; https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy8040222
Submission received: 13 September 2020 / Revised: 29 October 2020 / Accepted: 5 November 2020 / Published: 18 November 2020

Abstract

:
This study aimed to assess public knowledge about medicine information, safety, and adverse drug reaction reporting (ADR) in Dammam, Saudi Arabia. A cross sectional study was conducted using purposive stratified sampling in different settings of Dammam city for three months (January–March 2020). The target population was identified as consumers who had used the medicines in the last 3 months. The questionnaire was adopted from the literature and was validated. Content and face validities were established, and reliability was assessed. The study was approved by the concerned ethics committee. A total of 915 participants returned completed questionnaires. A total of 54.4% participants aged between 18 and 30 years, 65.8% were females and 53.1% had obtained bachelor level education. The mean score for knowledge of medicines (K1) was 5.46 ± 1.07. The mean score for knowledge regarding medication safety (K2) was 5.94 ± 1.73. The mean score for tendency to report a suspected ADR (T1) was 3.43 ± 1.57. Gender was a determinant of knowledge regarding medication safety (K2) (p < 0.01) and ADR reporting tendency (T1) (p < 0.01). The marital status of patients was a determinant for both knowledge of medicines (K1) (p < 0.01) and, knowledge regarding medication safety (K2) (p < 0.01). The results of this study highlighted that although the scores for knowledge of medicines, and tendency to report ADR were better, the score for knowledge regarding medication safety was unsatisfactory.

1. Introduction

One of the most important aspects of post marketing surveillance is the detection of adverse drug reactions (ADR) through spontaneous reporting (SR) [1]. Available evidence mentions the importance of patient reports as a credible source of information about the safety of new drugs [1]. Spontaneous reporting (SR) is a novel mechanism within the pharmacovigilance system to detect ADRs early; that were not reported previously. These ADRs could be rare and may be life threatening [1,2,3]. Ensuring patient safety is essential in sustaining the business of pharmaceutical industries. Notwithstanding the value of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in evaluating potential medicines for their therapeutic and safety profile, the design of such studies makes it difficult to monitor ADRs since RCTs are usually conducted in a strictly defined population for a limited time period [1,4,5,6]. Therefore, monitoring for safety after the medicine is approved for use by the regulator is critical to ensure treatment success, as well as minimizing any possible harm [6].
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines the term pharmacovigilance (PV) as, “the science and activities relating to the detection, assessment, understanding and prevention of adverse effects or any other medicine-related problem” [7]. Since 1960, this practice of SR has been followed globally to ensure the continuous monitoring of ADRs [1,7]. One of the major components of SR is data collection which could be voluntary or mandatory, depending upon a country’s regulation [7]. Since 2012, countries in the European Union have involved patients in ADR reporting [1,8]. In the past, healthcare professionals were solely considered to report ADRs. Nowadays, both the WHO and the European Union recognize the importance of direct patient reports [1,2,7].
The Saudi National Pharmacovigilance Center (SNPC) or NPC, was inaugurated in March 2009 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia [9,10]. Later, the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) became a full member in the Uppsala monitoring center (UMC) of the WHO [10,11]. The system is accessible to healthcare providers, pharmacies, health institutions and the Saudi public. Data highlighted that between 2010 and 2017, there was an increase in the number of reports through the system. However, despite these numbers, under-reporting is an issue in the Saudi healthcare sector [11].
Some notable reasons for under-reporting of ADRs include low awareness regarding the reporting system, lack of training, reliance on other health practitioners for reporting and, inability to identify the ADRs [12,13,14,15]. Evidence highlights that patients use the information about medication provided from different resources such as healthcare professionals, online sources, and patient information leaflet (PIL) to help identify a possible ADR [16].
It is unclear how well consumers are aware of the medicines and their safety, as well as the role of Saudi NPC. Moreover, the literature regarding consumers’ perception toward ADR reporting in Saudi Arabia is limited. This study aimed to assess the public knowledge about medicine information, safety and adverse drug reaction reporting in Saudi Arabia.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Venue

A cross sectional study was conducted using purposive stratified sampling in different settings of Dammam region for three months (January–March 2020).

2.2. Target Population and Eligibility Criteria

The target population was identified as consumers. Consumers from different age groups and genders who had used medicines in the last three months were included in the study. Those consumers who were under 18 years old, had not used medicines in the last 3 months and, not willing to participate, were excluded.

2.3. Sampling Strategy and Data Collection

Consumers were stratified into three main strata, i.e., students, employed and general public. The general public further included individuals who were un-employed, home makers and retired. Students were targeted in universities, employed consumers were contacted through email derived from social media while the general public was invited by visiting public places at weekends. The data collection started on 27 January 2020 and stopped on 31 March 2020.

2.4. Sample Size Calculation

Sample size was calculated using an online calculator [17]. The target population was identified as general population of Dammam region. According to official estimates the region has a population of 0.77 million [18]. This figure was identified as the target population and considering a 5% error and 95% confidence interval, the required sample size was 384.

2.5. Questionnaire Development and Validation

A questionnaire was adopted from the available literature and was further developed and validated [19,20]. The final version consisted of close ended questions covering the demographic information, the use of medications, reading and understanding the PIL, and the perception of drug safety. Apart from the demographic section, the questionnaire had 3 sections: (1) knowledge of medicines, (2) knowledge of medication safety and, (3) tendency to report a suspected ADR. The questionnaire was translated in Arabic using a forward–backward translation method by native Arabic speakers whose second language was English. The questionnaire underwent content and face validation as well as piloting.
The content validity in Table 1 was conducted according to the Lawshe’s method [21]. The content validity ratio (CVR) for items 2, 7, 12, 14 and 19, was 0.75. The CVR for all other items was 0.99. According to the criteria, CVR ≥ 0.75 was acceptable for each item [21]. The content validity index (CVI) was 0.93, i.e., acceptable. Furthermore, face validation was conducted via face-to-face review and some grammatical errors were rectified. The questionnaire was handed to 9 participants for piloting. No difficulty was reported in terms of understanding of the items. The pilot data were not included in the analysis.

2.6. Scoring of the Questionnaire

The questionnaire documented scores for three aspects of pharmacovigilance namely, knowledge of medicine (K1), knowledge regarding medication safety (K2) and tendency to report a suspected ADR (T1). The scoring criteria are presented in Table 2.

2.7. Data Analysis

The data were analyzed using SPSS version 23. Data were expressed as frequencies (n) and percentages (%). Where applicable, inferential statistics such as regression analyses were used to demonstrate the relationship between demographic variables and pharmacovigilance characteristics of participants.

2.8. Ethics Approval and Consent

Written informed consent was obtained from participants. The ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia, (IRB-2020-05-018).

3. Results

A total of 915 responses were received, the majority of the participants were between 18 and 30 years old (54,4%), females (65.8%), all of the participants were educated but with different levels where (53.1%) had a bachelor’s degree, more information about the participant demographics can be found in Table 3.

3.1. Medication Information

The mean score for knowledge of medicines (K1) was 5.46 ± 1.07 while the median was 6.0. Most participants (52.8%) had some medications without prescription and almost a quarter (24.9%) used them as a self-recommendation, followed by some who used them on the recommendation of pharmacist (20.4%). The participants were assessed for their knowledge about, indication, frequency, and duration of medication. The majority were aware of these (86.3%, 84.5%, 74%, respectively). More information about the participant medication information can be found in Table 4.

3.2. Medication Safety

The mean score for knowledge regarding medication safety (K2) was 5.94 ± 1.73 and the median was 6. Most of them indicated that they always read it (43.1%) or sometimes read it (49.6%), and only a few reported difficulty reading the PIL (7.3%). The majority was interested in reading the whole PIL (52.9%) but others participants specified other parts such as indication (19.7%), side effects (15.2%), dose and instructions (12.2%). The majority of participants knew about ADRs correctly (37.2%) but some participants (36.3%) answered “any effect of the medication”. Almost a quarter (24.3%) answered “expected reaction after taking the normal dose”. Few (2.3%) did not know what an ADR meant (Table 5).

3.3. Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) Reporting Tendency

The mean score for tendency to report a suspected ADR (T1) was 3.43 ± 1.57 and the median was 4.0. Most (58.7%) believed that both consumers and health care professionals (HCPs) should report ADRs. Some (39%) mentioned that it was the responsibility of the HCP only while a small segment (2.3%) believed it was consumers responsibility. Some participants had a previous ADR experience (16%) and those who had suffered, either reported it to HCPs (8.1%) or did not report it to any facility (7.8%). One participant did report it to the Saudi National Pharmacovigilance Center (NPC). Regarding the participants knowledge about the Saudi NPC, the overwhelming majority of people were not familiar with the center’s existence (91%). They also believed that this option should be available to the public (93.1%), and they expressed their interest to know more about the Saudi NPC (90.5%) (Table 6).
Bivariate analysis revealed that the mean score for knowledge of medicine (K1) was higher in patients above 45 years, those who were employed, and married. The variables of gender and education were not significantly associated with K1. The knowledge about medication safety (K2) was higher in married female patients below 45 years. The variable of education was not significantly associated with K2. The tendency to report a suspected ADR (T1) was higher in married female patients. All other demographic variables were non-significant for T1. The details are mentioned in Table 7.
Multivariate analysis revealed that gender was a determinant of knowledge regarding medication safety and male patients were more likely to have lower knowledge. In addition, the marital status of patients was also a determinant for both knowledge of medicines and knowledge regarding medication safety. Married patients were more likely to have better knowledge about medicines and their safety. The variables of age and employment were non-significant (Table 8).

4. Discussion

In our observation, most participants were either self-medicating or had their medications advised by a pharmacist. In a study it was observed that most patients in Saudi healthcare settings seek counseling from pharmacists [22]. Moreover, a dedicated drug information service is available in healthcare settings of the Dammam region [23]. The score indicated adequate knowledge about medication use which was in line with the results reported by Salgueiro et al. [20]. The score suggests good knowledge about medications among patients who were above 45, employed and married. Henceforth, this knowledge could result from more frequent use of prescribed medication in older age-groups. Employed participants may have better opportunities to learn about medicines by exchange of information with colleagues and information about medical insurance they are usually entitled to at the workplace. Similarly, being in a marital relationship allows both participants to be exposed to their medical history, apart from the knowledge exchange. Studies have highlighted that a spouse’s influence may lead to their partners improving their health behaviors [24,25]. Therefore, marital support may have some role in improvement of knowledge regarding medicines. Though, this hypothesis may require further investigation.
The majority (43.1%) of participants reported that they always read the PIL which aligns with the findings of several studies from other countries [20,26,27]. A study in Spain mentioned that 61.4% of participants always read the PIL [20]. A study in England reported that 41.9% of respondents always read the PIL [26]. A study in USA reported that 49.2% of participants always read the PIL [27]. Most participants (52.9%) in this study emphasized their interest in reading the whole PIL, however, other studies showed that the section pertaining to the side effects is the most read part of PIL [26,27,28]. A study by Krska and Morecroft reported that 37.7% of participants in England read the PIL section related to side effects [26]. While a study by Nathan and colleagues reported that 60.7% of respondents in the USA read the same section of the PIL [27]. Raynor and colleagues mentioned that 60–66% participants in the UK read the section related to side effects [28]. A study in UK examined PIL for appropriateness of information related to ADR risk presentation and found that few leaflets had this information according to the guidelines [29]. In this study, only 15.2% of participants read the side effects section, while the section that was read by most respondents (19.7%) was the indication of the medicine. Only few reported having difficulty reading and understanding the PIL.
Most participants (37.2%) accurately defined ADRs, however some were confused about the ADR meaning. This finding was in contrast to those reported by Sales et al. in Riyadh where majority defined ADR incorrectly and only a quarter (25.7%) knew the correct definition [19]. The score indicated a satisfactory knowledge of medication safety among participants. Further, it was evident that respondents had an interest in asking about possible ADRs of medicines they used. They showed interest in seeking information from the most common platforms, namely the internet, as well as the PIL, followed by healthcare professionals (HCPs) such as doctors and pharmacists. The majority mentioned that both HCPs and the consumers were responsible of reporting ADRs, though it was observed that a large number of participants rely on HCPs as responsible persons to report potential ADRs. In the study by Sales and colleagues, most respondents (73.2%) mentioned that ADR reporting should be done by HCPs [19].
Previous studies show a low tendency of ADR reporting among HCPs as well as their knowledge about the SNPC [30,31,32]. Therefore, it is imperative that both HCPs and consumers be educated about the process of reporting of ADRs. Mahmoud and colleagues mentioned the need to formulate interventions to improve knowledge of ADR reporting [32]. The study reported that less than 10% of participants were aware of the SNPC which was even lower than the figure reported by sales et al., i.e., 15.1% [19]. Alharf et al. mentioned that awareness regarding NPC could be created among HCPs through workshops. Moreover, establishment of regional committees to facilitate a knowledge exchange between NPC and HCPs would enhance communication [10]. The results of this study have policy implications as they have highlighted that the public has a low awareness about the NPC. Alharf et al. mentioned that social media could be helpful in disseminating information among the masses [10]. Therefore, various social media platforms could be used to provide awareness. In addition, communicating with HCPs to educate patients about the NPC and ADR reporting process during counseling could be very helpful in increasing ADR reporting. The results of this study highlighted that females had a greater tendency to report ADRs. This notion directs the attention to the male members of the public and targeting this stratum with the abovementioned interventions may greatly improve the outcome.
In summary, this study highlighted that a positive attitude exists among the general public towards ADR reporting. Moreover, the general public was welcoming to the idea of receiving further education about this process. The study had a limitation of sampling as it gathered few responses from geriatrics and participants who were employed in the health sector. The addition of responses from those participants would have improved the representativeness of the study and might have further clarified the findings. Nonetheless, the sample size and choice of statistical techniques used to elaborate the findings from this population are strong enough to highlight the phenomenon with significance.

5. Conclusions

The results of this study highlighted that although the population had a high score for knowledge of medicines and tendency to report ADRs, the score for knowledge regarding medication safety was unsatisfactory. The results suggest that further education should be conducted for the population of Saudi Arabia regarding the Saudi NPC and the ADRs reporting system. The attitude of the general public towards medicine knowledge seeking and ADR reporting was positive.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.A.I., A.A.N., S.A.-B., F.A.-H., R.A.-S., and A.F.A.-K.; methodology, M.A.I., S.A.-B., F.A.-H., R.A.-S., D.M.A., and A.A.N.; writing—original draft preparation, S.A.-B., F.A.-H., R.A.-S., A.A.N., M.A.I., D.M.A., and A.F.A.-K.; writing—review and editing, A.A.N., S.A.G., A.F.A.-K., M.A.I., and D.M.A.; supervision, A.A.N., A.F.A.-K., and D.M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

We extend our gratitude to the public for providing their honest response and to the college for technical support in the form of statistical software and printed surveys.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Inácio, P.; Cavaco, A.; Airaksinen, M. The value of patient reporting to the pharmacovigilance system: A systematic review. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2016, 83, 227–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Härmark, L.; Van Grootheest, A.C. Pharmacovigilance: Methods, recent developments and future perspectives. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2008, 64, 743–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Hazell, L.; Shakir, S.A. Under-Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions. Drug Saf. 2006, 29, 385–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Silverman, S.L. From Randomized Controlled Trials to Observational Studies. Am. J. Med. 2009, 122, 114–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Alves, C.; Macedo, A.F.; Marques, F.B. Sources of information used by regulatory agencies on the generation of drug safety alerts. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2013, 69, 2083–2094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pal, S.N.; Duncombe, C.; Falzon, D.; Olsson, S. WHO Strategy for Collecting Safety Data in Public Health Programmes: Complementing Spontaneous Reporting Systems. Drug Saf. 2013, 36, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data. Safety Monitoring of Medical Products: Reporting System for the General Public. 2012. Available online: https://www.who.int/medicines/areas/quality_safety/safety_efficacy/ConsumerReporting.pdf?ua=1 (accessed on 2 February 2020).
  8. Scurti, V.; Romero, M.; Tognoni, G. A plea for a more epidemiological and patient-oriented pharmacovigilance. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2011, 68, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Uppsala Monitoring Center. Uppsala Reports 45. 2009. Available online: https://www.who-umc.org/media/164350/ur45_07_no_shadow_.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2020).
  10. Alharf, A.; Alqahtani, N.; Saeed, G.; Alshahrani, A.; Alshahrani, M.; AlJasser, N.; Alquwaizani, M.; Bawazir, S. Saudi Vigilance Program: Challenges and lessons learned. Saudi Pharm. J. 2018, 26, 388–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Uppsala Monitoring Center. Uppsala Reports 47. 2009. Available online: https://www.who-umc.org/media/164375/ur47.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2020).
  12. Robertson, J.; Newby, D.A. Low awareness of adverse drug reaction reporting systems: A consumer survey. Med. J. Aust. 2013, 199, 684–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Tandon, V.R.; Mahajan, V.; Khajuria, V.; Gillani, Z. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions: A challenge for pharmacovigilance in India. Indian J. Pharmacol. 2015, 47, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Matos, C.; Van Hunsel, F.; Joaquim, J. Are consumers ready to take part in the Pharmacovigilance System?—A Portuguese preliminary study concerning ADR reporting. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2015, 71, 883–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Petrovic, M.; van der Cammen, T.; Onder, G. Recognition of Adverse Drug Events in Older Hospitalized Medical Patients. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2013, 69, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Narumol, J.; Arunrot, P.; Krska, J. Survey of patients’ experiences and their certainty of suspected adverse drug reactions. Int. J. Clin. Pharm. 2015, 37, 168–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Survey System. Sample Size Calculation. 2020. Available online: https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm. (accessed on 27 January 2020).
  18. Global Media Insight. Saudi Arabia Population. 2020. Available online: https://www.globalmediainsight.com/blog/saudi-arabia-population-statistics/ (accessed on 27 January 2020).
  19. Sales, I.; Aljadhey, H.; Albogami, Y.; Mahmoud, M.A. Public awareness and perception toward Adverse Drug Reactions reporting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Pharm. J. 2017, 25, 868–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Salgueiro-Vázquez, M.E.; Gurruchaga, C.; Jimeno, F.J.; Martin, L.; Arias, L.H.M.; Manso, G. What can we learn from the public’s understanding of drug information and safety? A population survey. Int. J. Pharm. Pract. 2018, 27, 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  21. Lawshe, C.H. A Quantitative Approach to Content Validity. Pers. Psychol. 1975, 28, 563–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Alshayban, D.M.; Naqvi, A.A.; Islam, A.; Almaskeen, M.; Almulla, A.; Alali, M.; AlQaroos, A.; Raafat, M.; Iqbal, M.S.; Haseeb, A. Patient Satisfaction and Their Willingness to Pay for a Pharmacist Counseling Session in Hospital and Community Pharmacies in Saudi Healthcare Settings. Front. Pharmacol. 2020, 11, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Alamri, S.A.; Al Jaizani, R.A.; Naqvi, A.A.; Al Ghamdi, M.S. Assessment of Drug Information Service in Public and Private Sector Tertiary Care Hospitals in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. Pharmacy 2017, 5, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Lewis, M.A.; Butterfield, R.M. Social Control in Marital Relationships: Effect of One’s Partner on Health Behaviors. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 37, 298–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dimatteo, M.R. Social Support and Patient Adherence to Medical Treatment: A Meta-Analysis. Health Psychol. 2004, 23, 207–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Krska, J.; Morecroft, C.W. Patients’ Use of Information about Medicine Side Effects in Relation to Experiences of Suspected Adverse Drug Reactions: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Medical In-Patients. Drug Saf. 2013, 36, 673–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Nathan, J.P.; Zerilli, T.; Cicero, L.A.; Rosenberg, J.M. Patients’ Use and Perception of Medication Information Leaflets. Ann. Pharmacother. 2007, 41, 777–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Raynor, D.K.; Silcock, J.; Knapp, P.; Edmondson, H. How do patients use medicine information leaflets in the UK? Int. J. Pharm. Pract. 2007, 15, 209–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Carrigan, N.; Raynor, D.K.; Knapp, P. Adequacy of patient information on adverse effects: An assessment of patient information leaflets in the UK. Drug Saf. 2008, 31, 305–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bawazir, S.A. Attitude of community pharmacists in Saudi Arabia towards adverse drug reaction reporting. Saudi. Pharm. J. 2006, 14, 75–83. [Google Scholar]
  31. Al-Hazmi, N.; Il, N. Attitude and Awareness of Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting by Health Professionals in Seven Hospitals in the Holy City of Makkah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. J. Clin. Trials 2013, 3, 2–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Mahmoud, M.A.; Alswaida, Y.; Alshammari, T.; Khan, T.M.; Alrasheedy, A.; Hassali, M.A.; Aljadhey, H. Community pharmacists’ knowledge, behaviors and experiences about adverse drug reaction reporting in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Pharm. J. 2013, 22, 411–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Table 1. Content validation.
Table 1. Content validation.
PanelistItems
12345678910111213141516171819
1.
2.
3.xx
4.
5.x
6.
7.x
8.x
Table 2. Scoring criteria of questionnaire.
Table 2. Scoring criteria of questionnaire.
Item # In QuestionnaireSection 1: Knowledge of Medicine on a Scale of 0 to 6.
(0 = Poor Knowledge, 6 = Good Knowledge)
Score
4.When you have to take a drug, do you know what it is for?
Yes2
No0
Sometimes1
I do not know0
5.When you have to take a drug, do you know when and with what frequency you have to take it?
Yes2
No0
Sometimes1
I do not know0
6.When you have to take a drug, do you know how long you have to take it for?
Yes2
No0
Sometimes1
I do not know0
Section 2: Knowledge Regarding Medication Safety on a Scale of 0 to 10.
(0 = Poor Knowledge, 10 = Good Knowledge)
7.Do you read the patient information leaflet for medicines?
Always2
Sometimes1
Never0
8.Do you find the patient information leaflet difficult to understand?
Yes0
No2
Sometimes1
10.What does an adverse drug reaction (ADR) mean?
Any effect from the medication0
Unexpected reaction after taking the normal dose2
Expected reaction after taking the normal dose0
I do not know0
11.Do you ask or search about your medication’s ADR?
Always2
Sometimes1
Rarely0.5
Never0
12.Which of the following resources do you use to search or ask about ADR?
Asking the physician2
Asking the pharmacist2
Internet2
Patient Information Leaflet (PIL)2
I do not search about it.0
Section 3: Tendency to Report a Suspected ADR on a Scale of 0 to 8.
(0 = Lowest, 8 = Highest)
13.In your opinion who should be responsible for reporting a suspected ADR from medications?
Health care professional0
Consumers2
All of the above2
14.Have you heard about Saudi National Pharmacovigilance Center (NPC)?
Yes2
No0
16.If you have experienced an ADR before, who did you report to from the following?
Health Practitioner2
Saudi National Pharmacovigilance Center (NPC)2
Did not report it0
Did not experience2
17.Do you know that consumer can directly report suspected ADR through Saudi vigilance program (NPC)?
Yes2
No0
Table 3. Demographics.
Table 3. Demographics.
VariablesFrequency (n)Percent (%)
Age
18–3049854.4
31–4525728.1
46–6415216.6
Older than 6580.9
Gender
Female60265.8
Male31334.2
Level of education
Middle School161.7
High school26128.5
Diploma10611.6
Bachelors48653.1
Higher education465
Occupation
Health sector employee647
Non-health sector employee31534.4
Un-employed/home maker15116.5
Health Student23125.2
Non-Health Student15416.8
Social Status
Single41044.8
Married50555.2
Table 4. Medication information.
Table 4. Medication information.
CharacteristicsFrequency (n)Percent (%)
In the last three months, have you taken any drug by medical prescription?
Yes52557.9
No37742.1
In the last three months, have you taken any drug not by medical prescription?
Yes48352.8
No41645.5
I do not know161.7
If yes, who recommended it?
Pharmacist18720.4
Health practitioner505.5
Friends and family839.1
Apothecary50.5
Social Media121.3
Myself22824.9
When you have to take a drug, do you know what it is for?
Yes79086.3
No121.3
Sometimes11212.2
I do not know10.1
When you have to take a drug, do you know when and with what frequency you have to take it?
Yes77384.5
No303.3
Sometimes11012
I do not know20.2
When you have to take a drug, do you know how long you have to take it for?
Yes67774
No748.1
Sometimes15016.4
I do not know141.5
Table 5. Medication safety.
Table 5. Medication safety.
CharacteristicsFrequency (n)Percent (%)
Do you read the patient information leaflet (PIL) for medicines? 1
Always39443.1
Sometimes45449.6
Never677.3
Do you find the patient information leaflet (PIL) difficult to understand?
Yes667.2
No52457.3
Sometimes32535.5
Which part of the patient information leaflet (PIL) do you read?
All48452.9
Indication18019.7
Dose and instruction11212.2
Side effects13915.2
What does an ADR mean? 2
Any effect from the medication33236.3
Unexpected reaction after taking the normal dose34037.2
Expected reaction after taking the normal dose22224.3
I do not know212.3
Do you ask or search about your medication’s ADR?
Always18520.2
Sometimes37240.7
Rarely20922.8
Never14916.3
Which of the following resource do you use to search or ask about ADR?
Asking the physician19521.3
Asking the pharmacist12113.2
Internet21823.8
Patient information leaflet (PIL)26729.2
I did not search about it.11412.5
1 Patient information leaflet; 2 Adverse drug reaction.
Table 6. ADR reporting.
Table 6. ADR reporting.
CharacteristicsFrequency (n)Percent (%)
In your opinion, who should be responsible for reporting possible ADR from medications?
Healthcare professionals (HCPs)35739
Consumers212.3
All of the above53758.7
Have you ever experienced an ADR?
Yes14616
No61967.7
I do not know15016.4
If you have experienced an ADR before who did you report to?
Health Practitioner748.1
Saudi National Pharmacovigilance Center (SNPC)10.1
Did not report it717.8
Did not experience76984
Have you heard about Saudi National Pharmacovigilance Center (SNPC)?
Yes829
No83391
Do you know that consumer can directly report suspected ADR through Saudi vigilance program in NPC?
Yes889.6
No82790.4
Do you agree that this reporting of suspected ADR should be available for public?
Yes85293.1
No465
I do not know171.9
In your opinion, should consumers receive more information about ADR reporting.
Yes82890.5
No91
I do not know788.5
Table 7. Bivariate analysis.
Table 7. Bivariate analysis.
VariablesKnowledge of Medicine (K1)Knowledge about Medication Safety (K2)Tendency to Report Suspected ADR (T1)
Mean (SD)MD (95% CI)Mean (SD)MD (95% CI)Mean (SD)MD (95% CI)
Age
Up to 45 years5.43 (1.11)−0.24 (−0.42, −0.05) **6.02 (1.74)0.43 (0.14, 0.73) **3.46 (1.62)0.12 (−0.15, 0.39) ns
More than 45 years5.66 (0.89) 5.59 (1.64) 3.34 (1.30)
Gender
Female5.52 (1.02)0.14 (−0.01, 0.29) ns6.14 (1.78)0.57 (0.34, 0.79) ***3.53 (1.67)0.27 (0.07, 0.47) **
Male5.37 (1.17) 5.57 (1.57) 3.26 (1.35)
Level of education
Up to high school5.42 (1.09)−0.07 (−0.23, 0.08) ns5.88 (1.67)−0.09 (−0.34, 0.15) ns3.39 (1.39)−0.06 (−0.27, 0.15) ns
Higher education5.49 (1.07) 5.97 (1.76) 3.45 (1.65)
Employment Status
Employed5.61 (0.93)0.24 (0.11, 0.38) ***5.83 (1.65)−0.19 (−0.42, 0.04) ns3.43 (1.49)0.01 (−0.21, 0.20) ns
Un-employed5.37 (1.15) 6.02 (1.79) 3.44 (1.63)
Social Status
Single5.19 (1.28)−0.49 (−0.63, −0.35) ***5.80 (1.81)−0.25 (−0.48, −0.03) *3.42 (1.63)−0.03 (−0.24, 0.16) ns
Married5.68 (0.81) 6.05 (1.66) 3.45 (1.52)
SD = Standard Deviation, MD = Mean Difference; * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001, ns = Not Significant; (n = 915).
Table 8. Multivariable analysis.
Table 8. Multivariable analysis.
VariablesModel for Knowledge of Medicine (K1) £Model for Knowledge about Medication Safety (K2) ¥
Coefficient (β) and (95% CI of β)p-ValueVIFCoefficient (β) and (95% CI of β)p-ValueVariance Inflation Factor
Age
(≤45 years vs. >45 years)
−0.003 (−0.21, 0.19)0.9281.230.011 (−0.17, 0.23)0.7561.20
Gender
(Female vs. Male)
---------−0.093 (−0.37, −0.07)0.0051.04
Employment Status
(Employed vs. Un-employed)
0.007 (−0.15, 0.18)0.8501.43---------
Social Status
(Single vs. Married)
0.233 (0.34, 0.67)p < 0.0011.450.235 (0.36, 0.66)p < 0.0011.18
£ ANOVA (F = 16.67, p < 0.001), R2 = 0.23; ¥ ANOVA (F = 19.49, p < 0.001), R2 = 0.2; (n = 445).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Islam, M.A.; Al-Karasneh, A.F.; Naqvi, A.A.; AlShayban, D.M.; Al-Hayek, F.; Al-Badrani, S.; Al-Salem, R.; Ghori, S.A. Public Awareness about Medicine Information, Safety, and Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) Reporting in Dammam, Saudi Arabia. Pharmacy 2020, 8, 222. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy8040222

AMA Style

Islam MA, Al-Karasneh AF, Naqvi AA, AlShayban DM, Al-Hayek F, Al-Badrani S, Al-Salem R, Ghori SA. Public Awareness about Medicine Information, Safety, and Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) Reporting in Dammam, Saudi Arabia. Pharmacy. 2020; 8(4):222. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy8040222

Chicago/Turabian Style

Islam, Md. Ashraful, Aseel Fuad Al-Karasneh, Atta Abbas Naqvi, Dhfer Mahdi AlShayban, Fatimah Al-Hayek, Sarah Al-Badrani, Raghad Al-Salem, and Syed Azizullah Ghori. 2020. "Public Awareness about Medicine Information, Safety, and Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) Reporting in Dammam, Saudi Arabia" Pharmacy 8, no. 4: 222. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy8040222

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop