An evaluation of knowledge, attitude and practice of pharmacovigilance among prescribers in a teaching hospital of south India

Prasad R. Shivarudraiah, Ravi H. Kudthni, Santhosh Ramakrishna, S. S. Koushik, Prajna V. Karki, Radhika Kedia


Background: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) represent a serious health problem. Effective generation of ADR related data helps in practicing evidence-based medicine and thus prevents many adverse drug reactions. Spontaneous reporting of ADRs has remained the major sources of information of pharmacovigilance. Underreporting of ADRs is a common problem. In order to improve the reporting rate, it is important to improve the Knowledge, Attitude and Practices (KAP) of the prescribers regarding ADR reporting and Pharmacovigilance. Hence this study was undertaken to assess the knowledge, attitude and practice regarding Pharmacovigilance among doctors of Shridevi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Hospital, Tumkur, Karnataka.

Methods: This was a cross sectional, observational, questionnaire based study conducted using a predesigned Knowledge Attitude Practice (KAP) questionnaire among 110 doctors. The completed KAP questionnaire was collected and data analyzed.

Results: Most of the doctors (98.15%) accepted that reporting ADR is necessary. 67.31% agreed that ADR reporting is necessary for identifying safety of the drug and 94.44% agreed that pharmacovigilance should be taught in detail to health-care professionals. But there was a huge gap between the ADR experienced (80%), and ADR reported (25.45%) by the prescribers. Only 29.09% medical professionals have ever seen the ADR reporting form and only 16.36% respondents have been trained on reporting on ADR.

Conclusions: Study revealed that the majority of the doctors had a good knowledge but poor attitude and practice of pharmacovigilance. They should be trained properly on ADR reporting to improve the current scenario in the pharmacovigilance program of the country.


Adverse drug reaction, Attitude, Knowledge, Practices, Pharmacovigilance

Full Text:



Meher BR, Joshua N, Asha B, Mukherji D. A questionnaire based study to assess knowledge, attitude and practice of Pharmacovigilance among undergraduate medical students in a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital of South India. Perspect Clin Res. 2015;6:217-21.

Reddy VL, Pasha SKJ, Rathinavelu M, Reddy YP. Assessment of knowledge, attitude and perception of Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) reporting among the Pharmacy students in South India. JPBS. 2014;9(2):34-43.

Classen DC, Pestotnik SL, Evans RS, Lloyd JF, Burke JP. Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients: Excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality. JAMA. 1997;277(4):301-6.

Rodriguez MR, Otero MJ, Rovira J. Assessing the economic impact of adverse drug effects. Pharmacoeconomics. 2003;21(9):623-50.

Lee A, Thomas SHL. Adverse drug reactions In: Walker R and Edward C. Clinical pharmacy and Therapeutics. 3rd Edition, Churchill Livingstone; 2003:33-46.

Safety of medicines: A guide to detecting and reporting adverse drug reactions. World Health Organization, Geneva, 2002. Available at: [Accessed May 12, 2017]

Feely J, Moriarty S, O' Connor P. Stimulating reporting of adverse drug reaction by using a fee. Br Med J. 1990;300:22-3.

Khan SA, Goyal C, Chandel N, Rafi M. Knowledge, attitude and practice of doctors to adverse drug reaction reporting in a teaching hospital in India: An observational study. Journal of Natural Science, Biology and Medicine. 2013;4(1):191- 6.

Radhakrishnan R, Sudha V, Varma DM. An Educational Intervention to assess Knowledge Attitude Practice of pharmacovigilance among Health care professionals in an Indian tertiary care teaching hospital. International Journal of Pharm Tech Research CODEN (USA): IJPRIF. April-June 2011;3(2):678-92.

Desai CK, Iyer G, Panchal J, Shah S, Dikshit RK. An evaluation of Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Pharmacovigilance among the Prescribers at a Tertiary care Hospital. Perspect Clin Res. 2011;2(4):129-36.

Hardeep, Bajaj JK, Rakesh K. A Survey on the Knowledge, Attitude and the Practice of Pharmacovigilance Among the Health Care Professionals in a Teaching Hospital in Northern India. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2013;7:97-9.

Gupta SK, Nayak RP, Shivaranjani R, Vidyarthi SK. A questionnaire study on the knowledge, attitude, and the practice of pharmacovigilance among the healthcare professionals in a teaching hospital in South India. Perspect Clin Res. 2015;6:45-52.

Kulkarni MD, Baig MS, Chandaliya KC, Doifode SM, Razvi SU, Sindhu NS. Knowledge attitude and practice of pharmacovigilance among prescribers of government medical college and hospital, Arungabad (Maharastra). International journal of pharmacology and therapeutics. 2013;3(3):10-8.

Palaian S, Ibrahim MI, Mishra P. Health Professional’s knowledge, attitude and practices towards pharmacovigilance in Nepal. Pharmacy Practice. 2011;9(4):228-35.

Aziz Z, Siang TC, Badarudin NS. Reporting of adverse drug reactions: Predictors of under-reporting in Malaysia. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16:223-8.

Herdeiro MT, Figueiras A, Polónia J, Gestal-Otero JJ. Physicians’ attitudes and adverse drug reaction reporting: A case-control study in Portugal. Drug Saf. 2005;28:825-33.

Okezie EO, Olufunmilayo F. Adverse drug reactions reporting by physicians in Ibadan, Nigeria. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008;17:517-22.

John LJ, Arifulla M, Cheriathu J, Sreedharan J. Reporting of adverse drug reactions: A study among clinicians. J Appl Pharm Sci. 2012;2:135-9.

Nwokike J. Monitoring Adverse Drug Reaction in the Public Health Programs: The Case of the Nigeria TB Program; 2008. Available at: s18400en.pdf. [Last accessed on 2017 June 10].

Muraraiah S, Rajarathna K, Sreedhar D, Basavalingu D, Jayanthi CR. A questionnaire study to assess the knowledge, attitude and practice of pharmacovigilance in a paediatric tertiary care centre. J Chem Pharm Res. 2011;3:416-22.

Remesh A. Identifying the reasons for under reporting of ADR: A cross sectional survey. Res J Pharm Biol Chem Sci. 2012;3:1379-86.