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 cross-sectional study was conducted among community pharmacists between March-April, 2015, using a self-administered, pre-tested questionnaire in the State of Selangor, Malaysia. A simple random sampling approach was used to select pharmacy sites. Descriptive and inferential statistical methods were used to analyse the data.
RESULTS: A total of 188 pharmacists responded to the survey, giving a response rate of 83.5%. The majority of participants (n = 182, 96.8%) believed that antimicrobial stewardship program helps healthcare professionals to improve the quality of patient care. However, more than half of pharmacists were neutral in their opinion about the incorporation of antimicrobial stewardship programs in community pharmacies (n = 102, 54.2%). Though collaboration was often done by pharmacists with other health professionals over the use of antibiotics (n = 104, 55.3%), a significant proportion of participants (n = 102, 54.2%) rarely/occasionally participate in antimicrobial awareness campaigns. Pharmacists having postgraduate qualification were more likely to held positive perceptions of, and were engaged in, antimicrobial stewardship than their non-postgraduate counterpart (p<0.05). Similarly, more experienced pharmacists (> 10 years) held positive perceptions towards antimicrobial stewardship (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: The study highlighted some gaps in the perception and practices of community pharmacist towards antimicrobial stewardship. Development of customized interventions would be critical to bridging these gaps and improve their perception and practices towards antimicrobial stewardship.
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.