IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v65y2007i6p1296-1309.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Creating knowledge about adverse drug reactions: A critical analysis of the Danish reporting system from 1968 to 2005

Author

Listed:
  • Aagaard, Lise
  • Soendergaard, Birthe
  • Andersen, Elin
  • Kampmann, Jens Peter
  • Hansen, Ebba Holme

Abstract

Data on adverse drug reactions (ADRs) have been collected in Denmark since 1968 and the process is ongoing. This article explores knowledge created by the system, including how the collected data have been used to monitor the safety of licensed drugs. Nonaka's theory of knowledge creation was used to discriminate between tacit and explicit knowledge. A total of 56,802 ADR case reports were received from 1968 to 2005. The analysis shows a rather stable number of ADR cases from 1980, with about 2000 reports per year. The distribution of cases into serious and non-serious ADRs has been one to four throughout the period under study, but with large variations. Analysis of selected ADR cases shows that the system lacked the potential to capture available knowledge. Consequently the ADR reports have had limited value and significance in the process of creating scientific knowledge. Thus, the analysis questions the way available data can become explicit as a basis for regulatory decisions and whether all data can become knowledge, including who decides what knowledge is.

Suggested Citation

  • Aagaard, Lise & Soendergaard, Birthe & Andersen, Elin & Kampmann, Jens Peter & Hansen, Ebba Holme, 2007. "Creating knowledge about adverse drug reactions: A critical analysis of the Danish reporting system from 1968 to 2005," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(6), pages 1296-1309, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:65:y:2007:i:6:p:1296-1309
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(07)00228-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:65:y:2007:i:6:p:1296-1309. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.