301 Scholars Academic Journal of Pharmacy (SAJP) ISSN 2320-4206 (Online) Sch. Acad. J. Pharm., 2015; 4(6): 301-307 ISSN 2347-9531 (Print) ©Scholars Academic and Scientific Publisher (An International Publisher for Academic and Scientific Resources) www.saspublisher.com Research Article Knowledge and Attitudes on Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting of Selected Hospital-based Health Practitioners in Manila, Philippines Rogie Royce Carandang * , Karen Cao, Nikki Beatrice Jose, Frances Diana Almonte, Ron Michael Tinio College of Pharmacy, Adamson University, City of Manila, Philippines *Corresponding author Rogie Royce Carandang Email: rrcarandang@gmail.com Abstract: Adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting is fundamental in the science of pharmacovigilance. However, under- reporting still exists and remains a major limitation of the system. This study sought to assess the knowledge and attitudes of hospital-based health practitioners in Manila towards adverse drug reaction reporting. A convenience sampling method was used among health professionals in selected hospitals in Manila. Data was collected using self- administered questionnaires from randomly selected pharmacists (23), physicians (47) and nurses (70). Results indicated that there is under-reporting of suspected ADRs. Majority of the health professionals (77%) have adequate knowledge on the ADR reporting. However, there is a significant difference on the level of knowledge of these practitioners. Nurses have the highest proportion of respondents (86%) with adequate knowledge. In addition, a higher percentage of respondents (80%) have unfavorable attitude towards ADR reporting. But still, the respondents acknowledged that ADR reporting is a professional obligation. Only years of practice in the profession appeared to possess a significant relationship to the practitioners’ knowledge. Meanwhile, only history of ADR reporting exhibited a significant influence to the attitudes of health practitioners. Those who had experienced reporting ADR are more likely to report ADRs. Knowledge and attitudes showed a strong influence in the ADR reporting of health professionals. Thus, development of education strategies which focused on recognition of ADRs as well as altering wrong beliefs and negative attitudes will hopefully develop a “reporting and learning culture” among the health professionals. Keywords: knowledge, attitudes, adverse drug reaction, hospital, health practitioners. INTRODUCTION Moore once said that, “All drugs are dangerous. Some may be useful”. This is the current dictum of many drug safety experts in the world [1]. Such principle has already been acknowledged by the World Health Organization (WHO) as early as 1946. The advent of the Thalidomide scare that resulted to phocomelia among children of mothers who were exposed to Thalidomide has brought into the attention of the global health experts the value of drug safety; thus, bringing about the science of pharmacovigilance (PV) [2]. Article 21 of the WHO constitution in 1946 stipulates that there should be an adoption of regulations concerning standards with respect to the safety, purity and potency of biological and pharmaceutical products moving to international commerce by world health assembly [3]. Hence, in 1971, there was an emergence of the practice and science of PV. In the Philippines, the science of PV has been recognized by the local health authority and Food and Drug Authority (FDA; formerly known as BFAD or Bureau of Food and Drug). In pursuant to the Republic Act 3720, otherwise known as the “Food, Drugs and Devices, and Cosmetic Act”, a Memorandum Circular no. 5 of 1994 was signed by Dr. Quintin Kintanar, the then Director of BFAD on April 24, 1994. This circular requires that all serious ADR reports shall be submitted to BFAD within two weeks after the receipt of the same. Other ADR reports shall be submitted on or before the 15 th of January of each year. On August 1994, the ADR reporting system in the Philippines was established and was recognized as a national center member of the World Health Organization International Drug Monitoring (currently known as the Uppsala Monitoring Centre) on February 1995 [4]. This memorandum circular was amended on 16 April 2010 through the FDA Circular 2010-09, and the amendment includes the change of timeline of reporting from two weeks to within 72 hours (3 working days) but no later than seven (7) working days for the serious ADR reports. Meanwhile for other ADR reports, these will submitted every 30 th of the first month of each quarter, and not annually during the 15 th of January each year as previously stated in the original