» Articles » PMID: 21521431

Assessing the Usability of Methods of Public Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions to the UK Yellow Card Scheme

Overview
Journal Health Expect
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Public Health
Date 2011 Apr 28
PMID 21521431
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study, which was part of the first independent evaluation of patient reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to the Yellow Card Scheme, was to observe the three reporting systems (paper, internet and telephone) 'in use' in a simulated setting to identify aspects which facilitated or hindered reporting.

Methods: Forty adult participants were recruited from the general public using posters in pharmacies and a press article, and from a pool of volunteer simulated patients maintained by University of Nottingham medical and pharmacy schools. The participants, in seven groups that met at different times, were asked to 'think aloud,' as they were individually observed completing the reporting process for the paper and internet system, highlighting their thoughts and any issues encountered. They were asked to talk about their experience of reporting immediately after they had reported by telephone. Data from the field notes were analysed thematically and supplemented with relevant information from digital audio recordings.

Conclusions: Usability testing using the 'think aloud' approach worked well and identified areas of the Yellow Card reporting system which could be improved. Whilst the three methods of reporting available to the public are all reasonably 'fit for purpose', there were many suggestions identified for improving ease of completion and data quality, especially for the internet system. When systems for reporting of ADRs are designed, they should be tested by potential users before they are launched, so that potential problems are identified in advance.

Citing Articles

Distributed Ledger Infrastructure to Verify Adverse Event Reporting (DeLIVER): Proposal for a Proof-of-Concept Study.

Milne-Ives M, Lam C, Rehman N, Sharif R, Meinert E JMIR Res Protoc. 2021; 10(6):e28616.

PMID: 34110292 PMC: 8231907. DOI: 10.2196/28616.


A cross-sectional survey of knowledge, attitude, and willingness to engage in spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions by Korean consumers.

Kim S, Yu Y, You M, Jeong K, Lee E BMC Public Health. 2020; 20(1):1527.

PMID: 33032559 PMC: 7545860. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-020-09635-z.


Postmarket surveillance: a review on key aspects and measures on the effective functioning in the context of the United Kingdom and Canada.

Raj N, Fernandes S, Charyulu N, Dubey A, G S R, Hebbar S Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2019; 10:2042098619865413.

PMID: 31384423 PMC: 6661791. DOI: 10.1177/2042098619865413.


Awareness and compliance with pharmacovigilance requirements amongst UK oncology healthcare professionals.

Thorne R, Bruggink R, Kelly S, Payne S, Purcell S, Montgomery D Ecancermedicalscience. 2018; 12:809.

PMID: 29492103 PMC: 5828672. DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2018.809.


Editorial.

Tritter J Health Expect. 2012; 15(4):337-8.

PMID: 23134216 PMC: 5060633. DOI: 10.1111/hex.12023.


References
1.
Jaspers M, Steen T, van den Bos C, Geenen M . The think aloud method: a guide to user interface design. Int J Med Inform. 2004; 73(11-12):781-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.08.003. View

2.
Schafer-Keller P, Dickenmann M, Berry D, Steiger J, Bock A, de Geest S . Computerized patient education in kidney transplantation: testing the content validity and usability of the Organ Transplant Information System (OTIS). Patient Educ Couns. 2008; 74(1):110-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.03.027. View

3.
Jaspers M . A comparison of usability methods for testing interactive health technologies: methodological aspects and empirical evidence. Int J Med Inform. 2008; 78(5):340-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.10.002. View

4.
Bastien J . Usability testing: a review of some methodological and technical aspects of the method. Int J Med Inform. 2009; 79(4):e18-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.12.004. View