Al-Mukhtar, S., Aladul, M., Younus, M. (2025). Simplification of Patient Adverse Events Reporting Form for Oncology Patients. , 22(2), 55-64. doi: 10.33899/iraqij.p.2025.156548.1127
Shahad Abdul-Salam Al-Mukhtar; Mohammed Ibrahim Aladul; Manal Younus. "Simplification of Patient Adverse Events Reporting Form for Oncology Patients". , 22, 2, 2025, 55-64. doi: 10.33899/iraqij.p.2025.156548.1127
Al-Mukhtar, S., Aladul, M., Younus, M. (2025). 'Simplification of Patient Adverse Events Reporting Form for Oncology Patients', , 22(2), pp. 55-64. doi: 10.33899/iraqij.p.2025.156548.1127
Al-Mukhtar, S., Aladul, M., Younus, M. Simplification of Patient Adverse Events Reporting Form for Oncology Patients. , 2025; 22(2): 55-64. doi: 10.33899/iraqij.p.2025.156548.1127

Simplification of Patient Adverse Events Reporting Form for Oncology Patients

Iraqi Journal of Pharmacy
Article 1, Volume 22, Issue 2, June 2025, Pages 55-64    PDF (779.51 K)
Document Type: Research Paper
DOI: 10.33899/iraqij.p.2025.156548.1127
Authors
Shahad Abdul-Salam Al-Mukhtar* 1; Mohammed Ibrahim Aladul1; Manal Younus2
1Department of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, University of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq
2Pharmacovigilance center, Iraqi Ministry of Health, Baghdad, Iraq
Abstract
Background: Reporting adverse drug events (ADEs) is critical for oncology medications’ development, monitoring effectiveness, and assessing treatment toxicity. Underreporting poses a major issue in evaluating the medication's safety profile. Underreporting was mainly due to a lack of simple, specific, and validated reporting forms for cancer patients. The study aims to develop a newly (simplified) electronic patient reporting form and compare it with the one already-in-use. Method: This study is a mixed-methods approach to develop and evaluate a simplified adverse event reporting form for oncology patients in Iraq. A Delphi technique was utilized to gather expert consensus on the strengths and weaknesses of the already-in-use and newly developed ADE reporting forms. A convenient sample of patients with various types of cancer was recruited to evaluate their preferences and opinions regarding the newly developed electronic form. Thematic analysis was utilized for qualitative data examination. Results: The Delphi panel consensus revealed the already-in-use form regarding its suitability for patient reporting While acknowledged as concise and straightforward for healthcare professionals (HCPs), the group emphasized that its design and content render it inaccessible and impractical for direct patient use. A comparative analysis of the two forms revealed significant differences in their design, accessibility, and user experience. The newly developed electronic form offers several advantages over the already-in-use paper-based form. The newly developed electronic reporting form shows excellent content validity for both clarity and relevance according to the calculated indices. Conclusion: The newly developed electronic patient-reported form, can significantly facilitate ADEs reporting. The findings highlight the potential afforded by digital tools to improve not only clinical practice but also patient-centered outcomes in oncology settings.
Keywords
Adverse drug events; Chemotherapy; Oncology; Reporting form
References
  1. Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 2024;74(3):229-63.
  2. Maillet D, Blay J, You B, Rachdi A, Gan HK, Péron J. The reporting of adverse events in oncology phase III trials: a comparison of the current status versus the expectations of the EORTC members. Annals of Oncology 2016;27(1):192-8.
  3. Trotti A, Colevas AD, Setser A, Basch E. Patient-reported outcomes and the evolution of adverse event reporting in oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2007;25(32):5121-7.
  4. Kluetz PG, Kanapuru B, Lemery S, Johnson LL, Fiero MH, Arscott K, et al. Informing the tolerability of cancer treatments using patient-reported outcome measures: summary of an FDA and critical path institute workshop. Value in Health 2018;21(6):742-7.
  5. Atkinson TM, Li Y, Coffey CW, Sit L, Shaw M, Lavene D, et al. Reliability of adverse symptom event reporting by clinicians. Quality of life research 2012;21:1159-64.
  6. Basch E, Iasonos A, Barz A, Culkin A, Kris MG, Artz D, et al. Long-term toxicity monitoring via electronic patient-reported outcomes in patients receiving chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2007;25(34):5374-80.
  7. Basch E. The missing voice of patients in drug-safety reporting. New England Journal of Medicine 2010;362(10):865-9.
  8. Lohr KN, Zebrack BJ. Using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: challenges and opportunities. Quality of Life Research 2009;18:99-107.
  9. Baldo P, Fornasier G, Ciolfi L, Sartor I, Francescon S. Pharmacovigilance in oncology. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy 2018;40:832-41.
  10. Kennedy F, Absolom K, Clayton B, Rogers Z, Gordon K, O’Connell Francischetto E, et al. Electronic patient reporting of adverse events and quality of life: a prospective feasibility study in general oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology: Oncology Practice 2021;17(3):e386-e96.
  11. Nguyen H, Butow P, Dhillon H, Sundaresan P. A review of the barriers to using patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) and patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine cancer care. Journal of medical radiation sciences 2021;68(2):186-95.
  12. Jenkinson C, Dawson J, Morris C, Jenkinson C, Peters M, Bromberg M. Aspects of methodology relevant to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK; 2011.
  13. Pitrou I, Boutron I, Ahmad N, Ravaud P. Reporting of safety results in published reports of randomized controlled trials. Archives of internal medicine 2009;169(19):1756-61.
  14. Breau RH, Gaboury I, Scales CD, Fesperman SF, Watterson JD, Dahm P. Reporting of harm in randomized controlled trials published in the urological literature. The Journal of urology 2010;183(5):1693-7.
  15. de Vries TW, van Roon EN. Low quality of reporting adverse drug reactions in paediatric randomised controlled trials. Archives of disease in childhood 2010;95(12):1023-6.
  16. Haidich A-B, Birtsou C, Dardavessis T, Tirodimos I, Arvanitidou M. The quality of safety reporting in trials is still suboptimal: survey of major general medical journals. Journal of clinical epidemiology 2011;64(2):124-35.
  17. Péron J, Maillet D, Gan HK, Chen EX, You B. Adherence to CONSORT adverse event reporting guidelines in randomized clinical trials evaluating systemic cancer therapy: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2013;31(31):3957-63.
  18. Van Grootheest K, de Jong-van den Berg L. Patients’ role in reporting adverse drug reactions. Expert opinion on drug safety 2004;3(4):363-8.
  19. Hazell L, Shakir SA. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions. Drug safety 2006;29(5):385-96.
  20. Alomar M, Tawfiq AM, Hassan N, Palaian S. Post marketing surveillance of suspected adverse drug reactions through spontaneous reporting: current status, challenges and the future. Therapeutic advances in drug safety 2020;11:2042098620938595.
  21. Chen K, Chen H, Conway N, Hellerstein JM, Parikh TS. Usher: Improving data quality with dynamic forms. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 2011;23(8):1138-53.
  22. Naeem M, Ozuem W, Howell K, Ranfagni S. A step-by-step process of thematic analysis to develop a conceptual model in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2023;22:16094069231205789.
  23. Vincze A, Csonka A, Nagy A. Improving pharmacovigilance in developing countries: Barriers and solutions. Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research 2020;11(1):12-22.
  24. Marusyk A, Janiszewska M, Polyak K. Intratumor Heterogeneity: The Rosetta Stone of Therapy Resistance. Cancer Cell 2020;37(4):471-84.
  25. Taha AH, Ibrahim SS, Al-Juboori AH. The role of patient education in enhancing pharmacovigilance in Iraq. Journal of Patient Safety and Pharmacovigilance 2020;2(1):12-8.
  26. Wiranata JA, Hutajulu SH, Astari YK, Leo B, Bintoro BS, Hardianti MS, et al. Patient-reported outcomes and symptom clusters pattern of chemotherapy-induced toxicity in patients with early breast cancer. Public Library of Science One 2024;19(2):e0298928.
  27. Williams D, Feely J. Underreporting of adverse drug reactions: attitudes of Irish doctors. Irish journal of medical science. 1999;168:257-61.
  28. Saini K, Mitra S, Singh A. Patient-reported adverse events in chemotherapy: A qualitative study Cancer Nursing 2020;43(5):385-92.
  29. El-Serafi M, Al-Rahman SSA, El-Bakary AR. Pharmacovigilance in the UAE: A study of patient and healthcare provider ADR reporting. Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice 2020 13(1):1-9.
  30. Almanasreh E, Moles R, Chen TF. Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity. Research in social and administrative pharmacy 2019;15(2):214-21.
  31. Patel D, Howard K, Lewis R. Patient attitudes toward the use of mobile health technologies in the management of chronic conditions: A systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2016;18(1):e77.
  32. Shaikh M, Reddy A, Khan S. Digital health tools for managing chronic diseases: A review of patient satisfaction. Health Technology Assessment 2019;23(8):88-94.
  33. Stewart J, Ross R, Ward P. Digital health platforms: Patient preferences and attitudes. Health Informatics Journal 2018;24(4):375-80.
  34. Albrecht I, Paladino E, Haney M. Digital health adoption: Understanding patient satisfaction with telehealth. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2020;26(3):134-40.
  35. Seljelid B, Varsi C, Solberg Nes L, Øystese KA, Børøsund E. Feasibility of a Digital Patient-Provider Communication Intervention to Support Shared Decision-Making in Chronic Health Care, InvolveMe: Pilot Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research Formative Research 2022;6(4):e34738.
  36. Fitzpatrick PJ. Improving health literacy using the power of digital communications to achieve better health outcomes for patients and practitioners. Frontiers in Digital Health 2023;5:1264780.
  37. Ezeamii VC, Okobi OE, Wambai-Sani H, Perera GS, Zaynieva S, Okonkwo CC, et al. Revolutionizing Healthcare: How Telemedicine Is Improving Patient Outcomes and Expanding Access to Care. Cureus 2024;16(7):e63881.
  38. Bhoyar A, Vagha S, Mishra V, Agrawal MS, Kambala SR. Addressing the Digital Divide in Health Education: A Systematic Review. Cureus 2024;16(9):e70048.
  39. Roberge P, Hudon C, Pavilanis A, Beaulieu M-C, Benoit A, Brouillet H, et al. A qualitative study of perceived needs and factors associated with the quality of care for common mental disorders in patients with chronic diseases: the perspective of primary care clinicians and patients. BioMed Central family practice 2016;17:1-14.
  40. Flanagan SM, Greenfield S, Coad J, Neilson S. An exploration of the data collection methods utilised with children, teenagers and young people (CTYPs). BioMed Central research notes 2015;8:1-14.
  41. Bennett AV, Jensen RE, Basch E. Electronic patient‐reported outcome systems in oncology clinical practice. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2012;62(5):336-47.
  42. Meirte J, Hellemans N, Anthonissen M, Denteneer L, Maertens K, Moortgat P, et al. Benefits and disadvantages of electronic patient-reported outcome measures: systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research perioperative medicine 2020;3(1):e15588.
  43. Verma N. Development and impact of a telemedicine platform with a task-shifting digital assistant to support frontline health workers and its dissemination as a Digital Public Good: Johns Hopkins University; 2022.
  44. Vaportzis E, Clausen MG, Gow AJ. Older Adults Perceptions of Technology and Barriers to Interacting with Tablet Computers: A Focus Group Study. Frontiers Psychology 2017;8:1687.
  45. Mumtaz H, Riaz MH, Wajid H, Saqib M, Zeeshan MH, Khan SE, et al. Current challenges and potential solutions to the use of digital health technologies in evidence generation: a narrative review. Frontiers Digital Health 2023;5:1203945.
Statistics
Article View: 457
PDF Download: 275


Journal Management System. Powered by iJournalPro.com