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.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This comprehensive review is based on the content derived through a thorough literature search using 5 electronic databases such as Science direct, Springer link, PubMed, Jet P and Google scholar. Equivalent terms in thesauruses or Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) browsers were used whenever possible. We included all the articles those are used CAM medications for the treatment of arthritis around the globe and searched for the required articles published in English in peer reviewed journals from January 1999 to February 2014. Reports were then arranged and analysed on the basis of country specific studies.
RESULTS: Initially, a total of 156 articles were retrieved, after further screening, 27 articles were selected according to meet objectives of the study and those articles which did not qualify, were excluded. Seventeen appropriate studies were finally included in the review. Indeed most of the studies that fulfilled the objective of this review were carried out in US (n=8, 47%), then in India (n=2, 11.76%), UK (n=1, 5.88%), Canada (n=1, 5.88%), Australia (n=1, 5.88%), Korea (n=1, 5.88%), Thailand (n=1, 5.88%), Turkey (n=1, 5.88%) and Malaysia (n=1, 5.88%).
CONCLUSION: The review revealed that family, friend, past experiences and lack of effectiveness of conventional therapy are the major factors that influenced patients' decision of initiating and persisting with CAM therapy. The review highlighted the need to conduct future studies by using some more specific health related outcome measures.
METHODS: A 23-item survey instrument that included a question on the bioequivalence limits and Likert-type scale questions regarding the understanding and perceptions of generic medicines among the students was executed. Cronbach's alpha was found to be 0.62.
RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 236 final-year Doctor of Pharmacy students (n=85 from a publicly funded institute; n=151 from a privately funded institute). When comparing a brand-name medicine to a generic medicine, pharmacy students scored poorly on bioequivalence limits. More than 80% of the students incorrectly answered that all the products that are rated as generic equivalents are therapeutically equivalent to each other (P<0.04). Half of the students agreed that a generic medicine is bioequivalent to the brand-name medicine (P<0.001). With regard to quality, effectiveness, and safety, more than 75% of the students disagreed that generic medicines are of inferior quality and are less effective than brand-name medicines (P<0.001). More than 50% of the students disagreed that generic medicines produce more side effects than brand-name medicines (P<0.001).
CONCLUSION: The current study identified a positive perception toward generic medicines but also gaps in the understanding of generic medicines. Pharmacy students lacked a thorough understanding of the concepts of bioequivalence. Pharmacy academia should address these issues, which will help build confidence in generic medicines and increase the generic medicine use in Pakistan.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study design was conducted to assess the level of knowledge on osteoporosis and to explore the potential association between the study program and osteoporosis-related knowledge among medicine, pharmacy, and allied health sciences students in a Malaysian University. A total of 348 students were approached. The data were collected using validated revised Osteoporosis Knowledge Test questionnaire.
RESULTS: The results showed variability in knowledge score between students belonging to different study programs. allied health sciences students have the highest overall total score (median = 20) and nutrition score (median = 16), but for exercise score, both students in allied health sciences and medicine programs shared a similar median score (median = 11.5). More than half of the respondents showed adequate knowledge on osteoporosis. The students from allied health sciences exhibited more knowledge on osteoporosis compared to students in other study programs. Among the Kulliyyah of Pharmacy respondents, the majority did not manage to answer correctly on the whole scale. This was evident by total percentage of 69.91% of the respondents scored below than median score.
CONCLUSION: There is a considerable gap of knowledge regarding osteoporosis among students in various health occupations academic programs. Pharmacy students particularly need focused learning related to exercise and nutrition in preventing osteoporosis during their academic program.