↓ Skip to main content

Perceived barriers to reporting adverse drug events in hospitals: a qualitative study using theoretical domains framework approach

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
165 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Perceived barriers to reporting adverse drug events in hospitals: a qualitative study using theoretical domains framework approach
Published in
Implementation Science, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0302-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fariba Mirbaha, Gloria Shalviri, Bahareh Yazdizadeh, Kheirollah Gholami, Reza Majdzadeh

Abstract

Adverse drug events (ADEs) are a major source of morbidity and mortality, estimated as the forth to sixth cause of annual deaths in the USA. Spontaneous reporting of suspected ADEs by health care professionals to a national pharmacovigilance system is recognized as a useful method to detect and reduce harm from medicines; however, underreporting is a major drawback. Understanding the barriers to ADE reporting and thereafter design of interventions to increase ADE reporting requires a systematic approach and use of theory. Since multiple theories in behavior change exist that may have conceptually overlapping constructs, a group of experts suggested an integrative framework called theoretical domains framework (TDF). This approach considers a set of 12 domains, came from 33 theories and 128 constructs, covering the main factors influencing practitioner behavior and barriers to behavior change. The aim of this study is to apply TDF approach to establish an evidence-based understanding of barriers associated with ADE reporting among nurses and pharmacists. A total of three focus group discussions were conducted; among them two consisted of nurses and one involved pharmacists. Discussions were guided by questions designed based on TDF. Transcriptions of discussions were then thematically analyzed, and detected barriers to reporting ADEs were categorized based on extracted themes. A total of 34 nurses and pharmacists attended the group discussions. Six domains were identified to be relevant to barriers of ADE reporting in hospitals. These domains included "Knowledge," "Skills," "Beliefs about consequences," "Motivation and goals (intention)," "Social influences (norms)," and "Environmental constraints." We detected several barriers to ADE reporting, such as lack of knowledge of what should be reported, fear of punishment and criticism, lack of time, lack of teamwork, and lack of active support by hospital managements and other colleagues. Based on detected barriers, "Cognitive and behavioral factors," "Motivational factors and teamwork," in addition to "Organizational processes and resources" could be targeted in designing appropriate interventions. Detection of barriers to reporting ADEs is necessary to design appropriate interventions. The TDF is a comprehensive approach that enables us to better understand barriers to behavior change in reporting ADEs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Unknown 163 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 15%
Researcher 17 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 24 15%
Unknown 44 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 24 15%
Psychology 7 4%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Other 14 8%
Unknown 54 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 November 2022.
All research outputs
#7,185,120
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,132
of 1,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,711
of 276,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#26
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,821 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,621 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.