Table 1.
Description of included articles
| Study | Study design | Country | Participants | Objectives |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anderson et al. [44] | Cross-sectional mixed methods | UK | 1362 survey respondents and 27 interviewees, members of public who submitted a an ADR via Yellow Care Scheme (YCS) | To explore the opinions of patient reporters to the UK YCS |
| Adisa et al. [45] | Cross-sectional quantitative | Nigeria | 1190 outpatients from various clinics at 3 public healthcare facilities in Ibadan | To evaluate patients’ knowledge, awareness, perception, and reporting of experienced ADRs |
| Ashoorian et al. [46] | Cross-sectional qualitative study | Australia | 78 participants recruited through the Mental Health Commission | To assess the acceptability, content validity and usability of the My Medicines and Me (M3Q) self-report side effect questionnaire |
| Jarernsiripornkul et al. [47] | Cross-sectional mixed method | Thailand | 2400 participants, at 3 locations: primary care units (PCU), community pharmacies and public areas | To determine confidence among members of the public in identifying suspected ADRs, information sources and their views towards direct ADR reporting |
| Sabblah et al. [48] | Cross-sectional quantitative | Ghana | 442 Patients who had submitted ADR reports through the National Pharmacovigilance Centre | To explore feedback from patients regarding ADR reporting submitted to the National Pharmacovigilance Centre |
| Sales et al. [49] | Cross-sectional quantitative | Saudi Arabia | 204 Members of the public | To assess the general public awareness and perception about ADRs reporting and pharmacovigilance |
| Sabblah et al. [29] | Cross-sectional quantitative | Ghana | 442 patients from 2 community pharmacies in Ghana | To explore patients’ knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and opinions on spontaneous ADR reporting in Ghana |
| Van Hunsel et al. [50] | Cross-sectional quantitative | Netherlands | 1370 patients who had previously reported an ADR in Netherlands | To quantify the reasons and opinions of patients who reported ADRs to a pharmacovigilance center |
| Fortnum et al. [51] | Cross-sectional quantitative | UK | Not mentioned | To determine the awareness, previous experience in ADR reporting by the public in UK |
| McAuley et al. [52] | Cross-sectional quantitative | USA | 82 Patients (or parents of patients) with epilepsy | To assess patients’ knowledge and attitudes toward reporting of ADRs secondary to anti-epileptic medicines |
| Oladimeji et al. [53] | Cross-sectional quantitative | USA | 1220 internet surveys respondents selected from the Medicare database | To quantify the association between risk factors and beliefs about self-reported ADRs |
| Cheema et al. [54] | Cross-sectional quantitative | UK | 256 patients visiting the emergency department of a UK hospital | To gain insight into patients’ medications and their experience of self-reported ADRs |
| Kim et al. [33] | Cross-sectional quantitative | South Korea | 1000 adult participants across South Korea | To assess knowledge, attitude to report ADRs and explore the factors contributing to patients’ reporting |
| Kassem et al. [55] | Cross-sectional qualitative | Saudi Arabia | 15 staff members from Unaizah College with experience with ADR reporting | To explore opinions and the need for patient friendly smartphone applications to enhance ADR reporting |
| Dweik et al. [56] | Cross-sectional qualitative | Canada | 15 participants who had experienced ADRs | To explore patients’ experiences reporting ADRs and their views on usability of Canadian Vigilance reporting forms, |
| Islam et al. [57] | Cross-sectional qualitative study | Saudi Arabia | Patients who had used medicines in the last three months | To assess the public knowledge about medicine safety and ADR reporting |
| Arnott et al. [58] | Cross-sectional qualitative study | UK | 44 parents with experience of submitting ADR report | To investigate parents’ views and experiences of direct reporting of a suspected ADR in their child |
| Braun et al. [59] | Cross-sectional quantitative | Australia | 620 patients at 60 community pharmacies and rural pharmacies in three Australian states |
To determine the prevalence of ADRs to over-the-counter complementary medicines and their severity by consumers; and to identify consumers’ reporting behaviors |
| Bukirwa et al. [60] | Cross-sectional qualitative study | Uganda | 16 primary caregivers | To investigate perceptions and experience with existing pharmacovigilance systems |
| Elkalmi et al. [61] | Cross-sectional mixed method | Malaysia | 334 members of general public in Penang | To explore the knowledge of the general population towards ADR and their reporting system |
| Harmark et al. [62] | Cross-sectional mixed method | Netherlands | 21 patients participating in a web-based monitoring study of anti-diabetic drugs | To gain insight into patients’ motives for participating in active Post Marketing Surveillance and investigate their experiences with such a system |
| Kraska et al. [63] | Cross-sectional quantitative | UK | 272 members of the public | To determine correlation between views of medicine safety, awareness of medicines’ side effects and reporting behaviors were related to experiences of suspected side effects |
| Lorimer et al. [64] | Cross-sectional qualitative | UK | 15 patients admitted following a suspected ADR | To explore patients’ experiences of severe adverse reactions and their views on reporting their ADRs to YCS |
| Robertson and Newby [14] | Cross-sectional quantitative | Australia | 2484 Members of the public | To determine levels of public awareness of consumer ADR reporting systems in Australia |
| Jha et al. [65] | Cross-sectional mixed method | Nepal | 23 out-patients in a teaching hospital of Nepal | To assess the knowledge and perception towards pharmacovigilance among |
| Jacobs et al. [66] | Cross-sectional mixed methods | Ghana | 572 patients from healthcare facilities | To assess patient awareness of ADRs and ADR-reporting and explores patient behaviors following an ADR |