↓ Skip to main content

Increasing Patient Engagement in Pharmacovigilance Through Online Community Outreach and Mobile Reporting Applications: An Analysis of Adverse Event Reporting for the Essure Device in the US

Overview of attention for article published in Pharmaceutical Medicine, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#3 of 169)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
70 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 Mendeley
Title
Increasing Patient Engagement in Pharmacovigilance Through Online Community Outreach and Mobile Reporting Applications: An Analysis of Adverse Event Reporting for the Essure Device in the US
Published in
Pharmaceutical Medicine, August 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40290-015-0106-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chi Y. Bahk, Melanie Goshgarian, Krystal Donahue, Clark C. Freifeld, Christopher M. Menone, Carrie E. Pierce, Harold Rodriguez, John S. Brownstein, Robert Furberg, Nabarun Dasgupta

Abstract

Preparing and submitting a voluntary adverse event (AE) report to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for a medical device typically takes 40 min. User-friendly Web and mobile reporting apps may increase efficiency. Further, coupled with strategies for direct patient involvement, patient engagement in AE reporting may be improved. In 2012, the FDA Center for Devices and Radiologic Health (CDRH) launched a free, public mobile AE reporting app, MedWatcher, for patients and clinicians. During the same year, a patient community on Facebook adopted the app to submit reports involving a hysteroscopic sterilization device, brand name Essure(®). Patient community outreach was conducted to administrators of the group "Essure Problems" (approximately 18,000 members as of June 2015) to gather individual case safety reports (ICSRs). After agreeing on key reporting principles, group administrators encouraged members to report via the app. Semi-structured forms in the app mirrored fields of the MedWatch 3500 form. ICSRs were transmitted to CDRH via an electronic gateway, and anonymized versions were posted in the app. Data collected from May 11, 2013 to December 7, 2014 were analyzed. Narrative texts were coded by trained and certified MedDRA coders (version 17). Descriptive statistics and metrics, including VigiGrade completeness scores, were analyzed. Various incentives and motivations to report in the Facebook group were observed. The average Essure AE report took 11.4 min (±10) to complete. Submissions from 1349 women, average age 34 years, were analyzed. Serious events, including hospitalization, disability, and permanent damage after implantation, were reported by 1047 women (77.6 %). A total of 13,135 product-event pairs were reported, comprising 327 unique preferred terms, most frequently fatigue (n = 491), back pain (468), and pelvic pain (459). Important medical events (IMEs), most frequently mental impairment (142), device dislocation (108), and salpingectomy (62), were reported by 598 women (44.3 %). Other events of interest included loss of libido (n = 115); allergy to metals (109), primarily nickel; and alopecia (252). VigiGrade completeness scores were high, averaging 0.80 (±0.15). Reports received via the mobile app were considered "well documented" 55.9 % of the time, compared with an international average of 13 % for all medical products. On average, there were 15 times more reports submitted per month via the app with patient community support versus traditional pharmacovigilance portals. Outreach via an online patient community, coupled with an easy-to-use app, allowed for rapid and detailed ICSRs to be submitted, with gains in efficiency. Two-way communication and public posting of narratives led to successful engagement within a Motivation-Incentive-Activation-Behavior framework, a conceptual model for successful crowdsourcing. Reports submitted by patients were considerably more complete than those submitted by physicians in routine spontaneous reports. Further research is needed to understand how biases operate differently from those of traditional pharmacovigilance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 70 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Australia 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 144 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 15%
Researcher 19 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 36 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 9%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 7%
Computer Science 10 7%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 47 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 68. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 March 2021.
All research outputs
#617,203
of 25,030,708 outputs
Outputs from Pharmaceutical Medicine
#3
of 169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,270
of 269,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pharmaceutical Medicine
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,030,708 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 169 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,704 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.