Pilot of a pharmacoepidemiology capacity building electronic survey for the Latin American and African regions
Castillo, Wendy Camelo
Juarez, Lucia D.
MetadataShow full item record
Background: The ISPE Global Development Committee in collaboration with the Educational Committee and ISPE Board of Directors aims to build‐up pharmacoepidemiology (PE) research capacity in the Latin America (LatAm) and African regions. An electronic survey was developed to identify current status, needs, gaps and priorities in pharmacoepidemiology to support capacity building in these regions. Objectives: To describe preliminary results from the survey pilot conducted in the LatAm and African regions. Methods: We conducted a literature review to identify international and local publications, and validated questionnaires focused on capacity building. From this review, the Potter systemic capacity building model was used to establish the hierarchy of needs. The questionnaires were developed considering the following domains: policy, law and regulations; existing PE systems, structures and skills; existing PE centers and training; data sources and management; risk management and communication. The questionnaire was developed and refined in collaboration with PE international experts, including those from the LatAm and African regions. Two questionnaires were developed: 1. Screening questionnaire to identify target population, 2. In‐depth questionnaire to characterize opportunities for capacity building. Both surveys were translated from English to Spanish, French and Portuguese by native speakers who were also PE researchers, and validated by a second set of translators. We used an online survey builder to develop the electronic survey. Results: Thirty researchers participated in the pilot, 25 (83.3%) accepted to take the interview and 25 completed it. Sixteen (64%) were from LatAm and nine (36%) from Africa. English was the preferred language (N = 12 English, 9 Spanish, 2 French, 2 Portuguese). Fifteen (60%) of pilot participants would be eligible for the in‐depth questionnaire. Most participants (N = 20, 80%) work in pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacovigilance or both, and over half (N = 15, 56%) had formal training in the field. More than half (N = 18, 72%) were researchers, and 60% were involved in teaching. Most responders wanted to receive study results (N = 23, 92%). Pilot participants provided a few suggestions on wording or expansion of response options. Conclusions: The high response rate and overall eligibility rate set a positive stage to pilot the in‐depth questionnaire. Leveraging the regional networks will be key to increasing the number of participants in both regions