Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Teoh KW, Ng CM, Chong CW, Bell JS, Cheong WL, Lee SWH
    PMID: 36792169 DOI: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2022-003203
    The prevalence of pre-diabetes is increasing globally, affecting an estimated 552 million people by 2030. While lifestyle interventions are the first line of defense against progression toward diabetes, information on barriers toward pre-diabetes management and how to overcome these barriers are scarce. This systematic review describes the publics' and healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) toward pre-diabetes and determines the barriers toward pre-diabetes management. A systematic search for studies examining KAP towards pre-diabetes was conducted in six databases from inception to September 2022. Studies that quantitatively assessed at least two KAP elements using questionnaires were included. The quality of studies was assessed using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Barriers and enablers were identified and mapped onto the Capability, Motivation, and Behaviour model to identify factors that influence behavior change. Twenty-one articles that surveyed 8876 participants were included in this review. Most of the reviews (n=13) were directed to healthcare professionals. Overall, positive attitudes toward diabetes prevention efforts were observed, although there were still knowledge deficits and poor behavior toward pre-diabetes management. Barriers and enablers were detected at patients (eg, goals and intention), healthcare professionals (eg, clinical judgement) and system (eg, access and resources) levels. The use of different survey instruments to assess KAP prevented a head-to-head comparison between studies. Most studies conducted among patients were from middle-income countries, while among healthcare professionals (HCPs) were from high-income countries, which may produce some biasness. Nevertheless, the development of pre-diabetes intervention should focus on: (1) increasing knowledge on pre-diabetes and its management; (2) imparting practical skills to manage pre-diabetes; (3) providing resources for lifestyle management; (4) improving the accessibility of lifestyle management programs; and (5) other HCPs and human support to pre-diabetes management.
  2. Kongpakwattana K, Sawangjit R, Tawankanjanachot I, Bell JS, Hilmer SN, Chaiyakunapruk N
    Br J Clin Pharmacol, 2018 Jul;84(7):1445-1456.
    PMID: 29637593 DOI: 10.1111/bcp.13604
    AIMS: To determine the most efficacious and acceptable treatments of agitation in dementia.

    METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL and clinicaltrials.gov were searched up to 7 February 2017. Two independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of treatments to alleviate agitation in people with all-types dementia. Data were extracted using standardized forms and study quality was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs. Data were pooled using meta-analysis. The primary outcome, efficacy, was 8-week response rates defined as a 50% reduction in baseline agitation score. The secondary outcome was treatment acceptability defined as treatment continuation for 8 weeks.

    RESULTS: Thirty-six RCTs comprising 5585 participants (30.9% male; mean ± standard deviation age, 81.8 ± 4.9 years) were included. Dextromethorphan/quinidine [odds ratio (OR) 3.04; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.63-5.66], risperidone (OR 1.96; 95% CI, 1.49-2.59) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors as a class (OR 1.61; 95% CI, 1.02-2.53) were found to be significantly more efficacious than placebo. Haloperidol appeared less efficacious than nearly all comparators. Most treatments had noninferior treatment continuation compared to placebo, except oxcarbazepine, which was inferior. Findings were supported by subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

    CONCLUSIONS: Risperidone, serotonin reuptake inhibitors as a class and dextromethorphan/quinidine demonstrated evidence of efficacy for agitation in dementia, although findings for dextromethorphan/quinidine were based on a single RCT. Our findings do not support prescribing haloperidol due to lack of efficacy, or oxcarbazepine due to lack of acceptability. The decision to prescribe should be based on comprehensive consideration of the benefits and risks, including those not evaluated in this meta-analysis.

  3. Sluggett JK, Stasinopoulos J, Sylvester C, Wong WJ, Hillen J, Hughes GA, et al.
    Res Social Adm Pharm, 2024 Apr 09.
    PMID: 38693035 DOI: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2024.04.008
    BACKGROUND: Pharmacist-led medication regimen simplification using a structured approach can reduce unnecessary medication regimen complexity in residential aged care facilities (RACFs), but no studies have investigated simplification by different health professionals, nor the extent to which simplification is recommended during comprehensive medication reviews.

    OBJECTIVES: To compare medication regimen simplification opportunities identified by pharmacists, general medical practitioners (GPs), and geriatricians and to determine if pharmacists identified simplification opportunities during routinely conducted comprehensive medication reviews in RACFs for these same residents.

    METHODS: Three pharmacists, three GPs and three geriatricians independently applied the Medication Regimen Simplification Guide for Residential Aged CarE (MRS GRACE) to medication data for 83 residents taking medications at least twice daily. Interrater agreement was calculated using Fleiss's kappa. Pharmacist medication review reports for the same 83 residents were then examined to identify if the pharmacists conducting these reviews had recommended any of the simplification strategies.

    RESULTS: Overall, 77 residents (92.8 %) taking medications at least twice daily could have their medication regimen simplified by at least one health professional. Pharmacists independently simplified 53.0-77.1 % of medication regimens (Κ = 0.60, 95%CI 0.46-0.75, indicating substantial agreement), while GPs simplified 74.7-89.2 % (Κ = 0.44, 95%CI 0.24-0.64, moderate agreement) and geriatricians simplified 41.0-66.3 % (Κ = 0.30, 95%CI 0.16-0.44, fair agreement). No simplification recommendations were included in the reports previously prepared by pharmacists as part of the comprehensive medication reviews undertaken for these residents.

    CONCLUSION: Pharmacists, GPs, and geriatricians can all identify medication regimen simplification opportunities, although these opportunities differ within and between professional groups. Although opportunities to simplify medication regimens during comprehensive medication reviews exist, simplification is not currently routinely recommended by pharmacists performing these reviews in Australian RACFs.

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links