Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Healthcare Professionals’ Self-Reported Experiences and Preferences Related to Direct Healthcare Professional Communications

A Survey Conducted in the Netherlands

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Drug Safety Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: In Europe, Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs) are important tools to inform healthcare professionals of serious, new drug safety issues. However, this tool has not always been successful in effectively communicating the desired actions to healthcare professionals.

Objective: The aim of this study was to explore healthcare providers’ experiences and their preferences for improvement of risk communication, comparing views of general practitioners (GPs), internists, community pharmacists and hospital pharmacists.

Methods: A questionnaire was developed and pilot tested to assess experiences and preferences of Dutch healthcare professionals with DHPCs. The questionnaire and two reminders were sent to a random sample of 3488 GPs, internists and community and hospital pharmacists in the Netherlands. Descriptive statistics were used to describe demographic characteristics of the respondents. Chi squares, ANOVAs and the Wilcoxon signed rank test were used, when appropriate, to compare healthcare professional groups.

Results: The overall response rate was 34% (N= 1141, ranging from 24% for internists to 46% for community pharmacists). Healthcare providers trusted safety information more when provided by the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) than by the pharmaceutical industry. This was more the case for GPs than for the other healthcare professionals. Respondents preferred safety information to be issued by the MEB, the Dutch Pharmacovigilance Center or their own professional associations. The preferred alternative channels of drug safety information were e-mail, medical journals and electronic prescribing systems.

Conclusions: Safety information of drugs does not always reach healthcare professionals through DHPCs. To improve current risk communication of drug safety issues, alternative and/or additional methods of risk communication should be developed using electronic methods and medical journals. Moreover, (additional) risk communication coming from an independent source such as the MEB should be considered. Special effort is needed to reach GPs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Table III

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds make it possible to see when websites have added new information, such as, for example, news headlines and press releases. RSS feeds make checking separate websites unnecessary.

References

  1. Stricker BC, Psaty BM. Detection, verification, and quantification of adverse drug reactions. BMJ 2004 07; 329 (7456): 44–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Giezen TJ, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Straus SMJM, et al. Safety-related regulatory actions for biologicals approved in the United States and the European Union. J Am Med Assoc 2008 10; 300 (16): 1887–96

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Arnardottir AH, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Straus SMJ, et al. Additional safety risk to exceptionally approved drugs in Europe?. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2011; 72 (3): 490–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Weatherby LB, Walker AM, Fife D, et al. Contraindicated medications dispensed with cisapride: temporal trends in relation to the sending of ‘Dear Doctor’ letters. Pharma-coepidemiol Drug Saf 2001; 10 (3): 211–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Guo JJ, Curkendall S, Jones JK, et al. Impact of cisapride label changes on codispensing of contraindicated medications. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2003; 12 (4): 295–301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gibbons RD, Brown CH, Hur K, et al. Early evidence on the effects of regulators’ suicidality warnings on SSRI pre-scriptions and suicide in children and adolescents. Am J Psychiatry 2007; 164 (9): 1356–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Olfson M, Marcus SC, Druss BG. Effects of food and drug administration warnings on antidepressant use in a national sample. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2008; 65 (1): 94–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Valuck RJ, Libby AM, Orton HD, et al. Spillover effects on treatment of adult depression in primary care after FDA advisory on risk of pediatric suicidality with SSRIs. Am J Psychiatry 2007; 164 (8): 1198–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. European Commission. Volume 9A of the rules governing medicinal products in the European Union. Guidelines on pharmacovigilance for medicinal products for human use. 2008 Sep [online]. Available from URL: http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol-9/pdf/vol9a_09-2008_en.pdf [Accessed 2012 Feb 13]

  10. Slovic P. Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Anal 1993; 13 (6): 675–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. The European Parliament and The European Council. REGULATION (EU) No 1235/2010. 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:348:0001:0016:EN:PDF [Accessed 2012 Feb 13]

  12. The European Parliament and The European Council. DIRECTIVE 2010/84/EU. 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:348:0074:0099:EN:PDF [Accessed 2012 Feb 13]

  13. Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet 2003 10; 362 (9391): 1225–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. J Am Med Assoc 1999 10; 282 (15): 1458–65

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board. Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCS). 2012 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cbg-meb.nl/CBG/en/human-medicines/pharmacovigilance/DHPC/default.htm [Accessed 2012 Feb 10]

  16. Raosoft®. Sample size calculator. 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.raosoft.com [Accessed 2009 Sep 17]

  17. Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke MJ, et al. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; (3): MR000008

  18. Lee LY, Kortepeter CM, Willy ME, et al. Drug-risk communication to pharmacists: assessing the impact of risk-minimization strategies on the practice of pharmacy. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) 2008; 48 (4): 494–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Health Canada. Public opinion survey on key issues pertaining to post-market surveillance of marketed health products in Canada. Health Canada, 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/pubs/medeff/_res-rec/2004-decima_2003_final_rep-rapp/index-eng.php [Accessed 2012 Feb 13]

  20. Cheung A, Sacks D, Dewa CS, et al. Pediatric prescribing practices and the FDA black-box warning on antidepres-sants. J Dev Behav Pediatr 2008; 29 (3): 213–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Karpel JP, Peters JI, Szema AM, et al. Differences in physicians’ self-reported knowledge of, attitudes toward, and responses to the black box warning on long-acting beta-agonists. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2009; 103 (4): 304–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Morrato EH, Curbow B, Crum RM, et al. Communicating drug risk to physicians: challenges and opportunities. Int J Risk Saf Med 2008; 20 (3): 143–54

    Google Scholar 

  23. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency/Ipsos Mori. Risks and benefits of medicines and medical devices: perceptions, communication and regulation. Report on quantitative research among health professionals. 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Publications/Corporate/Research/index.htm [Accessed 2012 Feb 13]

  24. Berry DC. Risk, communication and health psychology. 1st ed. Berkshire: Open University Press, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  25. Nichols V, Theriault-Dube I, Touzin J, et al. Risk perception and reasons for noncompliance in pharmacovigilance: a qualitative study conducted in Canada. Drug Saf 2009; 32 (7): 579–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ko Y, Malone DC, Skrepnek GH, et al. Prescribers’ knowledge of and sources of information for potential drug-drug interactions: a postal survey of US prescribers. Drug Saf 2008; 31 (6): 525–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports. BIG register. Cijfers [in Dutch]. 2011 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.bigregister.nl [Accessed 2012 Feb 7]

  28. Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL). Beroepen in de gezondheidszorg. Databank. 2011 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nivel.nl/databank [Accessed 2012 May 30]

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Michelle Pena for her contribution to an earlier version of the article. This study was supported by an unconditional grant from the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (CBG-MEB). The authors, who are also (part-time) employees of the MEB (Pieter de Graeff, Sabine Straus and Peter Mol), state that the opinions presented in this paper are their own and do not necessarily reflect that of the MEB. All authors report that they do not have any conflicts of interest.

This article is part of a theme issue co-edited by Priya Bahri, European Medicines Agency, UK, and Mira Harrison-Woolrych, New Zealand Pharmacovigilance Centre, New Zealand. No external funding was used to support the publication of this theme issue.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center, Groningen, the Netherlands

    Sigrid Piening, Flora M. Haaijer-Ruskamp, Pieter A. de Graeff &  Peter G. M. Mol

  2. Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board, The Hague, the Netherlands

    Pieter A. de Graeff, Sabine M. J. M. Straus &  Peter G. M. Mol

  3. Medical Informatics, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

    Sabine M. J. M. Straus

Authors
  1. Sigrid Piening
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Flora M. Haaijer-Ruskamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pieter A. de Graeff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sabine M. J. M. Straus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter G. M. Mol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter G. M. Mol.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Piening, S., Haaijer-Ruskamp, F.M., de Graeff, P.A. et al. Healthcare Professionals’ Self-Reported Experiences and Preferences Related to Direct Healthcare Professional Communications. Drug Saf 35, 1061–1072 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03261992

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03261992

Keywords

Search

Navigation