Pharmacoepidemiology capacity building in the Latin American and African regions
Castillo, Wendy Camelo
Juarez, Lucia D.
MetadataShow full item record
Background: An electronic screening survey of pharmacoepidemiology (PE) capacity building was developed for the Latin America (LatAm) and African regions. The objective of the screening survey was to identify a target population, to inform a second in‐depth questionnaire to identify current status, needs, gaps and priorities in pharmacoepidemiology in these regions. Objectives: To describe the results of the pharmacoepidemiology capacity building electronic screening survey for the LatAm and African Regions. Methods: Following the Potter systemic capacity building model, a screening survey was developed in collaboration with PE international experts including those from the LatAm and African regions. The screening questionnaire was translated from English to Spanish, French and Portuguese by native speakers who were also PE researchers, and validated by a second set of translators. An online survey builder was used to develop the electronic survey. Results: There were 110 participants, 91 (83%) from the LatAm and 19 (17%) from the African regions. From LatAm, 24% were from Brazil followed by Colombia (23%), Mexico (11%), Argentina (10%), Chile (9%), Ecuador (7%) and others (16%). From Africa, 26% were from Nigeria followed by South Africa (21%), Ghana (21%), Cameroon (11%) and others (21%). More than half of all respondents (58%) were pharmacists, followed by medical doctors (23%). In terms of primary work, 35% were from academic institutions, 29% from government, 11% from industry, 10% from hospitals and the rest from other sectors. Eighteen percent were currently working in PE, 34% in pharmacovigilance (PV), 33% in both and the rest in neither. Of the total, 53% had formal training in PE, 66% were involved in teaching and 63% in research. Of those involved in teaching (N = 72), 51% have worked in both, PE and PV and only 14% in PE only. Of those involved in research (N = 68), 47% were in public health, 34% in clinical, 13% in applied research, 3% in basic science and 3% in qualitative research. Regarding main specific activity, 34% were working on policies, 30% in pharmacovigilance, 13% in development, 9% in benefit/risk, 3% in risk management plans and 11% in other areas. Conclusions: There was a high response rate of the screening survey particularly from the LatAm region. The overall eligibility rate set a positive stage for the in‐depth questionnaire. The high proportion of respondents involved in teaching and research will contribute to leverage the topics by region according to specific needs