Defining the awareness and attitude of the clinicians through pharmacovigilance in Turkey

Table 1 Age distribution of the participants

Age range, yr	n (%)
18-25	19 (3)
26-35	388 (61.9)
36-44	103 (16.4)
45 and more	117 (18.7)
Total	627 (100)

Table 2 Specialty distribution of the participants

Specialization	n (%)
Emergency medicine	40 (6.4)
Family medicine	79 (12.6)
Anaesthesiology and resuscitation	49 (7.8)
Brain surgery	13 (2.1)
Paediatric surgery	3 (0.5)
Child psychiatry	7 (1.1)
Dermatology	6 (1)
Infectious diseases and clinical microbiology	11 (1.8)
Physical medicine and rehabilitation	29 (4.6)
General surgery	9 (1.4)
Thoracic surgery	20 (3.2)
Chest diseases	19 (3.2)
Eye diseases	15 (2.4)
Public health	5 (0.8)
Internal diseases	85 (13.6)
Gynaecology and obstetrics	22 (3.5)
Cardiology	16 (2.6)
Ear nose throat and diseases	5 (0.8)
Cardiovascular surgery	4 (0.6)
Neurology	19 (3)
Orthopaedics and traumatology	17 (2.7)
Pathology	5 (0.8)
Paediatrics	48 (7.7)
Psychiatry	43 (6.9)
Radiology	24 (3.8)
Medical genetics	18 (2.9)
Urology	16 (2.6)
Total	627 (100)

Table 3 Professional experience levels distribution of participants

Year of experience	n (%)
≤ 4	164 (26.2)
5–9	245 (39.1)
10–14	67 (10.7)
≥ 15	151 (24.1)
Total	627 (100)

Table 4 Ranking of participants’ reasons for not reporting adverse drug reactions

Reason	% (Ratio)
Difficulty in deciding whether ADRs have occurred	54 (320/592)
Insufficient time to report ADR	52 (312/592)
Consideration that the ADR is not significant enough to be reported	46 (275/592)
The absence of any reward for reporting	45 (270/592)
Believing that licensed drugs are safe	43 (255/592)
The notion that a single unreported ADR will not affect the database	41 (247/592)
Not knowing how to make a notification	34 (203/592)

ADR: Adverse drug reactions.