IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/drugsa/v48y2025i11d10.1007_s40264-025-01571-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reporting Adverse Drug Events: A Comparison of an Online Patient Tool Versus Telephone-Based Monitoring in Community Pharmacy Patients in the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Henok D. Habtemariam

    (Leiden University Medical Center)

  • Henk-Jan Guchelaar

    (Leiden University Medical Center)

  • Lisanne E. N. Manson

    (Leiden University Medical Center)

  • Jesse J. Swen

    (Leiden University Medical Center)

  • Agnes C. Kant

    (Leiden University Medical Center
    Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb,)

  • Stefan Böhringer

    (Leiden University Medical Center
    Leiden University Medical Center)

Abstract

Background Adverse drug events (ADEs) are events occurring after the administration of a drug. Several authorities are involved in capturing these ADEs to improve pharmacovigilance. These ADEs are reported directly to healthcare professionals or via the telephone, online, or e-mail and are crucial for maintaining drug safety. Objective Patient-reported adverse drug events (ADEs) are collected using various tools, though not much is known with regard to the comparability of these different methodologies. It is known that telephone-based surveys result in a higher report rate, although it is not known if this has an effect on the type of ADEs that are reported. In this prospective study, we aimed to investigate if there are differences in the number, type, and severity of ADEs reported via telephone and online in an event monitoring setting. Methods Patients included in Dutch community pharmacies were asked whether they experienced any ADEs via telephone and online (Lareb Intensive Monitoring) surveys as part of the PREPARE study. The PREPARE study was a multicenter study, researching the effect of genotype-guided dosing on the incidence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions. With the paired data acquired in the PREPARE study, we investigated differences in the number, type, and severity of the reported ADEs. Results Patients (N = 525) completed both the telephone and online surveys. Of the 525 patients who completed both surveys, 326 reported ADEs via telephone and 239 online. A visual comparison showed a similar distribution in the type of ADEs among the methods except for less commonly reported types of ADEs and cardiac disorders. The perceived severity of ADEs were proportionally reported as more severe during the telephone survey versus the online survey. Conclusions Our study showed a clear difference in the number of ADEs reported during telephone and online monitoring. Additionally, the differences in the type of ADEs and the severity distribution of both tools shows that the tools are not exchangeable (CT.gov identifier: NCT03093818).

Suggested Citation

  • Henok D. Habtemariam & Henk-Jan Guchelaar & Lisanne E. N. Manson & Jesse J. Swen & Agnes C. Kant & Stefan Böhringer, 2025. "Reporting Adverse Drug Events: A Comparison of an Online Patient Tool Versus Telephone-Based Monitoring in Community Pharmacy Patients in the Netherlands," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 48(11), pages 1205-1214, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:48:y:2025:i:11:d:10.1007_s40264-025-01571-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40264-025-01571-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-025-01571-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40264-025-01571-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:drugsa:v:48:y:2025:i:11:d:10.1007_s40264-025-01571-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40264 .

    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.