Adverse drug reaction: Knowledge, attitude and practice amongst paediatric dentists in India: An electronic survey

Abstract

Background: In India, though pharmacovigilance programme had been introduced way back in 2003, still there are very less cases reported regarding adverse drug reaction (ADR), especially by dental professionals. This led to the necessity to find out the knowledge regarding ADR amongst the dentists and the reasons for underreporting. Moreover, as ADRs are more common and severe amongst paediatric population when compared to adults, this electronic survey was carried out to assess the knowledge, attitude and practices amongst the students pursuing masters in paediatric dentistry. Methods: A questionnaire survey was conducted amongst post-graduate students registered with Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. A Google Form with covering letter which included specified instruction format, informed consent, covering letter with clear description of the purpose of the study and questions in different categories were mailed. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse responses. The association of knowledge and attitude with respect to position of paediatric dentists was analysed with Chi-square test. Results: The questionnaire was completed by 274 participants. Ninety per cent of participants were aware that ADR can be caused by the drugs available in the market and such drugs can be banned post availability in the market. Only 20% of the participants were aware of PvPI app but 75% participants opted for online reporting of ADR. Nearly 81% of participants believed that ADR should be reported the moment it is observed and this reporting is basically for the safety of the patients. Nearly 90% of participants agreed that dental materials can cause ADR due to either lack of knowledge to identify ADR and the procedure of reporting or the fear of legal issues. Almost only 4% of the participants have ever attended an ADR workshop. Conclusion: The general knowledge of ADR is prevalent amongst the participants, but there is strong evidence of underreporting and lack of reporting system information.