METHODS/DESIGN: This is a randomized, single-blind, two-arm, controlled trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis visiting outpatient rheumatology clinics in Karachi, Pakistan. We will enroll patients with established diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis over 3 months. The patients would be randomized through a computer-generated list into the control group, i.e., usual care or into the intervention group, i.e., pharmaceutical care, in a ratio of 1:1, after providing signed written consent. The study will take place in two patient-visits over the course of 3 months. Patients in the intervention group would receive intervention from the pharmacist while those in the control group will receive usual care. Primary outcomes include change in mean score from baseline (week 0) and at follow up (week 12) in disease knowledge, adherence to medications and rehabilitation/physical therapy. The secondary outcomes include change in the mean direct cost of treatment, HRQoL and patient satisfaction with pharmacist counselling.
DISCUSSION: This is a novel study that evaluates the role of the pharmacist in improving treatment outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The results of this trial could set the foundation for future delivery of care for this patient population in Pakistan. The results of this trial would be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03827148 . Registered on February 2019.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed in four electronic databases, namely Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed and ProQuest to identify studies published in English from 1999 to July 2022. The inclusion criteria included the studies that reported an experience of providing dedicated travel health services by pharmacists and reported the outcomes and/or evaluation of these travel health services.
RESULTS: Nine studies were identified from the literature and included in the review. The pharmacists have provided a wide range of general and specialized travel health services including pre-travel risk assessment, routine and travel-related vaccination service, prescribing or recommending medications for travel-related illnesses, counseling and travel health advice. Overall, 94-100% of the patients were satisfied or very satisfied with pharmacist-managed travel health services. In addition, a good acceptance rate of pharmacist recommendations for vaccines and travel-related mediations was reported with most studies reporting an overall acceptance rate of ≥75% (acceptance rate range: 48%-94.2%). In addition, high rates of acceptance of other nonpharmacological advices were noted.
CONCLUSION: Pharmacists with training in travel medicine have successfully provided a wide range of general and specialized travel health services. Most travelers were highly satisfied with the pharmacy-based travel health services and accepted the pharmacist recommendations.
Method: We used pharmacy dispensing data of 1461 eligible T2DM patients from public primary care clinics in Malaysia treated with oral antidiabetic drugs between January 2018 and May 2019. Adherence rates were calculated during the period preceding the HbA1c measurement. Adherence cut-off values for the following conditions were compared: adherence measure (MPR versus PDC), assessment period (90-day versus 180-day), and HbA1c target (⩽7.0% versus ⩽8.0%).
Results: The optimal adherence cut-offs for MPR and PDC in predicting HbA1c ⩽7.0% ranged between 86.1% and 98.3% across the two assessment periods. In predicting HbA1c ⩽8.0%, the optimal adherence cut-offs ranged from 86.1% to 92.8%. The cut-off value was notably higher with PDC as the adherence measure, shorter assessment period, and a stricter HbA1c target (⩽7.0%) as outcome.
Conclusion: We found that optimal adherence cut-off appeared to be slightly higher than the conventional value of 80%. The adherence thresholds may vary depending on the length of assessment period and outcome definition but a reasonably wise cut-off to distinguish good versus poor medication adherence to be clinically meaningful should be at 90%.
KEY FINDINGS: Research philosophy has been introduced to offer an alternative way to think about problem-driven research that is normally conducted. To clarify the research philosophy, four research paradigms, i.e. positivism (or empiricism), postpositivism (or realism), interpretivism (or constructivism) and pragmatism, are investigated according to philosophical realms, i.e. ontology, epistemology, axiology and logic of inquiry. With the application of research philosophy, some examples of quantitative and qualitative research were elaborated along with the conventional research approach. Understanding research philosophy is crucial for pharmacy researchers and pharmacists, as it underpins the choice of methodology and data collection.
CONCLUSIONS: The review provides the overview of research philosophy and its application in pharmacy practice research. Further discussion on this vital issue is warranted to help generate quality evidence for pharmacy practice.
Objective: The aim of this study was to determine knowledge, awareness and preparedness regarding coronavirus disease 2019 among CPPs working in Kathmandu, Nepal.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a convenience sampling method from 10 February to 25 March 2020. Data were analysed descriptively, and one-sample independent t-test and one-way analysis of variance were used to compare scores among different subgroups of respondents (p
Objective: To assess the understanding of community pharmacy personnel around antibiotic-dispensing in Eastern Nepal and the relationship between this understanding and their personal characteristics.
Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted on 312 pharmacy personnel working in community pharmacies of three districts within Eastern Nepal using a self-administered questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze participants' characteristics and their understanding of antibiotic dispensing. The relationships between their understanding of antibiotic dispensing and their characteristics were determined using Chi-square tests.
Results: Most of the pharmacy personnel considered that dispensing antibiotics without a valid prescription is a problem (76.9%), and that it would not be legal to do so (86.9%). In the survey, 34.9% of participants agreed that they had dispensed antibiotics without prescription, and 26.9% disagreed with the assertion that inappropriate dispensing of antibiotics could promote antimicrobial resistance. Most (94.5%) reported that they would advise patients to follow their antibiotic dosage regimen, but 34.3% reported that they believed antibiotics to reduce pain and inflammation. Bivariate analysis showed that the level of understanding about antibiotic indication was significantly associated with age (p<0.001), work experience (p<0.001) and qualifications (p=0.017) of the pharmacy personnel. Work experience and qualifications also had significant but independent relationships with the level of understanding that irrational dispensing of antibiotics promotes antimicrobial resistance (p=0.018 and p=0.004) and is on the need for patient follow-up after dispensing antibiotics (p<0.001 and p=0.042).
Conclusion: The understanding of community pharmacy personnel about antibiotic dispensing in Eastern Nepal requires significant improvement. Degree of understanding of some aspects of antibiotic dispensing was influenced by age, work experience and qualifications.
Methods: A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was conducted via a web-based survey in May 2020. All pharmacy students enrolled at Unaizah College of Pharmacy, Qassim University, were invited to take part in the study.
Results: A total of 232 out of 460 students took part in the study, giving a response rate of 50.43%. The mean total knowledge score was 9.87 ± 2.04 (maximum attainable score, 12). The majority of the participants (n=163; 70.3%) believed COVID-19 is a health threat to their community in the early months of the pandemic. Moreover, the majority (93%) also believed that the lockdown at the beginning of the pandemic was necessary to contain the pandemic. Encouragingly, 86.6% reported that they did not go to any crowded places during the pandemic with more female students avoiding crowded places compared to male students (91.6% versus 78.7%, respectively, P = 0.005). The majority (91%) also reported that they were following the strategies recommended by the authorities to prevent the spread of the virus. Encouragingly, 54.3% reported that the pandemic either had no effect or just a limited effect on their studies. However, 38.5% reported that they always felt or frequently felt nervous or anxious during the pandemic.
Conclusion: The study showed that pharmacy students had good knowledge as well as positive attitudes and good practices towards COVID-19 and the preventive measures. However, during the early months, the pandemic did have a negative psychological impact on a number of students. Consequently, proactive psychological and social support services to the students should be considered during the current and future pandemics. In addition, it is important to consider and proactively address key issues that could cause stress and anxiety among students when shifting to distance learning and assessments.
Objective: The current study aimed to assess the beliefs and implementations of community pharmacists in the UAE regarding evidence-based practice (EBP) and to explore the significant factors governing their EBP.
Setting: Community pharmacies in Dubai and the Northern Emirates, UAE.
Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted over six months between December 2017 and June 2018. Community pharmacists who had three months' professional experience or more and were registered with one of three regulatory bodies (Ministry of Health, Health Authority Abu Dhabi, or Dubai Health Authority) were interviewed by three trained final-year pharmacy students. Face-to-face interviews were then carried out and a structured questionnaire was used.
Metrics: The average beliefs score was 36% (95% CI: [34%, 39%]) compared to an implementation score of 35% (95% CI: [33%, 37%]).
Results: A total of 505 subjects participated in the study and completed the entire questionnaire. On average, participants scored higher in beliefs score than implementation score. The results of the statistical modelling showed that younger, female, higher-position pharmacists with more experience and with low percentages of full-time working, and graduates from international/regional universities were more likely to believe in and implement the concept of EBP.
Conclusion: A gap was identified between the beliefs and implementation of EBP. Developing educational EBP courses in undergraduate pharmacy curricula is of high importance, not only to increase knowledge levels but also to encourage commitment in those pharmacists to strive for professionalism and to support the provided patient care with evidence.