METHODS: A systematic review was performed through Pubmed, Scopus, Embase and Google Scholar scientific databases. Studies pertaining to KAP of PV and ADR reporting by Indian health professionals between January 2011 and July 2015 were included in a meta-analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 28 studies were included in the systematic review and 18 of them were selected for meta-analysis. Overall, 55.6% (95% CI 44.4-66.9; p<0.001) of the population studied were not aware of the existence of the Pharmacovigilance Programme in India (PvPI), and 31.9% (95% CI 16.3-47.4; p<0.001) thought that "all drugs available in the market are safe". Furthermore, 28.7% (95% CI 16.4-40.9; p<0.001) of them were not interested in reporting ADRs and 74.5%, (95% CI 67.9-81.9; p<0.001) never reported any ADR to PV centers.
CONCLUSION: There was an enormous gap of KAP towards PV and ADR reporting, particularly PV practice in India. There is therefore an urgent need for educational awareness, simplification of the ADR reporting process, and implementation of imperative measures to practice PV among healthcare professionals. In order to understand the PV status, PvPI should procedurally assess the KAP of health professionals PV activities in India.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the knowledge, attitude and practice of Bachelor of Pharmacy (BPharm) and Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) students about usage and resistance of antibiotics in Southern India.
METHODS: This was a cross sectional study involving final year BPharm and PharmD students studying in two private institutions located in Andra Pradesh, India. The study was conducted for the period of 3 months. The questionnaire was divided into 5 components: demographics, knowledge about antibiotic use, attitude towards antibiotic use and resistance, self-antibiotic usage, and possible causes of antibiotic resistance. The study questionnaire was assessed for reliability. Data were analysed by employing Mann Whitney and chi square tests using SPSS version 19.
RESULTS: The sample size comprised of 137 students. The response rate was 76.11% for the study. There was a significant difference in the knowledge of antibiotic use in BPharm and PharmD students (Mean score: 5.09 vs 6.18, p<0.001). The overall attitude of PharmD students about antibiotic use and resistance was positive compared to BPharm students (Mean score: 3.05 vs 2.23, p<0.05). The self-antibiotic practices was higher in BPharm students than PharmD students (36.4% vs 20%, p<0.05). A significantly high number of PharmD students believed that empirical antibiotic therapy led to antibiotic resistance (19.5% versus 48%, P<0.05).
CONCLUSION: PharmD students were more knowledgeable about antibiotic usage and resistance compared to BPharm students who did not have accurate and the much needed information about the same. Future interventions should be targeted towards educating the BPharm students so that they can implement the acquired knowledge in their practice.
METHODS: The current research was a cross-sectional study design in which a pre-validated questionnaire was administered to physicians and pharmacists in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The study was conducted for two months from January 2016 to February 2016.
RESULTS: A total of 194 physicians and pharmacists responded with a response rate of 35.3%. All the respondents either strongly agreed or agreed that ADRs reporting is a part of their duty. Half of the respondents agreed that monitoring of drug safety is important. Around three quarters of respondents (74.2%) stated that they did not report ADRs due to unavailability of reporting forms while 70% cited lack of a proper pharmacovigilance center as one of the key barriers. Half of the respondents (52.2%) did not report due to their insufficient knowledge. A large majority (81.8%) said that they would report ADRs if there is pharmacovigilance center. On the point of incentives, opinion seems to be divided. Slightly less than half (47.8%) cited their wish to have few incentives while the remaining 52.2% either preferred to be neutral or disagreed.
CONCLUSION: Based on the study findings, barriers were mostly related to general unfamiliarity with ADRs reporting guidelines and the non-existence of a pharmacovigilance center. It is highlighted that the regulatory body should carve a niche for a properly functional pharmacovigilance center and initiate educational programs for strengthening knowledge and attitudes towards ADR reporting.
METHOD: This cross-sectional study was conducted on a sample of 256 conveniently selected elderly Malaysians who were residing in the states of Selangor and Kuala Lumpur. A pre-validated interview-administered questionnaire was used to gather information. Data was entered into PASW version 18 and analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of 256 questionnaires were included in the study. A response rate of 64% was achieved. Out of 256 respondents, 92 (35.9%) were male while 164 (64.1%) were female. More than half of the respondents (n = 141; 55.1%) agreed that CAM is more effective than allopathic medicine. Chinese respondents showed strong belief in the effectiveness of CAM. In terms of safety of CAM, close to three quarters of respondents (n = 178; 69.5%) believed that CAM is safer than allopathic medicine. A large majority of respondents agreed that CAM has less side effects compared to allopathic medicine (n = 201; 78.5%) and also agreed that CAM is good to maintain overall health and wellbeing (n = 212; 82.8%). A majority of the respondents expressed that they use CAM because allopathic medicine is less effective (n = 113; 44.1%).
CONCLUSION: The current study reflects the reasons of using CAM among lay public from different ethnicities. There are no reports of adverse effects related to CAM use. Future approaches should be intended for awareness campaigns for consumers, highlighting safety profile of CAM and as well as forbidding their use without the consultation of healthcare professional.