Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Adverse drug responses (ADRs) are a significant source of preventable patient harm, and spontaneous reporting by healthcare practitioners (HCPs) remains the principal means by which new safety information on marketed medicines is generated. Under-reporting nevertheless persists across countries and professions, weakening signal detection and delaying regulatory action. This narrative review synthesizes the literature on familiarity of ADR reporting among physicians, nurses, pharmacists and trainees, and on educational strategies to enhance it. Evidence was identified from biomedical databases and authoritative regulatory and international sources, and organized thematically into the definition and classification of ADRs, the framework of drug safety surveillance, the importance of reporting, familiarity and understanding, attitude and practice (KAP) studies, specific understanding and procedural gaps, and organizational and system barriers. Available evidence shows a consistent pattern of favourable attitudes alongside limited understanding of what, how and where to report, with correspondingly low reporting practice, particularly among nurses, pharmacists and young clinicians in India and other developing settings. Barriers include insufficient time, diffidence about causality, misconceptions that only serious or unfamiliar reactions need reporting, cumbersome forms, absence of feedback and limited institutional support. Educational interventions, comprising workshops, lectures, outreach and curriculum-based training, are widely reported to enhance KAP scores and, in several studies, reporting rates, although durability of effect and quality of evidence vary. Embedding drug safety surveillance education in curricula and continuing professional development, together with simplified reporting tools and supportive institutional systems, is key to improving ADR reporting. Finally, practical recommendations for curriculum design, health policy and future research are also outlined.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sachin. et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: