Like all other futures, the future of pharmacoepidemiology is not entirely clear. Major forces exist that are driving the agenda for pharmacoepidemiology. This article reviews and weighs these factors and the roles of the major related actors. Like all health futures, that of pharmacoepidemiology can be positively influenced by responsible contributions, particularly by the pharmaceutical community.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
NaisbittJ. Megatrends. New York: Warner Books, 1982; 39–53.
2.
LawsonDH. Pharmaco-epidemiology: A new discipline. Br Med J1984; 289: 940–1.
3.
JickHMadsenSNudelmanPMPereraDRStergachisA. Postmarketing follow-up at Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound. Pharmacotherapy1984; 4: 99–100.
4.
EddyDM. Presented at Prevention ‘86. Atlanta, GA, April 1986. The annual meeting of the American College of Preventive Medicine, Washington, DC.
5.
InmanWHW, ed. Monitoring for drug safety. 2nd ed.Lancaster, UK: MTP Press, 1986.
6.
Committee on Safety of Medicines. Adverse Reactions Working Party Report. Part 1. Limitations of ADR System, June 1983; Part 2, July 1985. Department of Health and Social Services, London, England.
7.
Cooperative agreement between the National Centers for Disease Control and the Association of Teachers of Preventive Medicine, 1985.
8.
LuscombeFA. Methodologies issues in pharmacy-based postmarketing surveillance. Drug Inf J1985; 19: 269–74.
9.
FaichGA. Adverse drug reaction monitoring. N Engl J Med1986; 314: 1589–92.
10.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Post-marketing surveillance of prescription drugs. Congressional Board of the 97th Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982.
