METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted using an online questionnaire. Community pharmacists in Malaysia were invited to participate in the study via emails. The questionnaire was structured based on the Malaysian Community Pharmacy Benchmarking Guidelines, the five practice principles of pharmaceutical care by the American Pharmacists Association and other studies. The online questionnaire was opened for 6 months, from April to September 2018. A reminder to participate was sent via email to the community pharmacists every fortnight.
RESULTS: A total of 420 community pharmacists responded to the online questionnaire. Besides essential services such as treatment for minor illness, medicine dispensing and counselling, most of the respondents were providing health screening and monitoring (99.5%), selection and recommendation of health supplements (90.5%), patient medication review (68.8%), weight management (52.4%) and counselling on smoking cessation (51.0%). More than half (53.3%) of the respondents reported that they were providing pharmaceutical care services to patients with chronic diseases. Based on the practice principles of pharmaceutical care, the respondents were involved in patients' data collection (23.3%), medical information evaluation (18.6%), formulating a drug therapy plan (9.3%), implementing a drug therapy plan (4.5%), and monitoring and modifying the plan (18.3%). Lack of separation between prescribing and dispensing was perceived as the main barrier to the implementation of pharmaceutical care services by a majority of the respondents (84.0%).
CONCLUSIONS: The present study found that pharmaceutical care services provided by community pharmacists in Malaysia were inadequate compared to international practice principles. Areas that need improvement included collaboration with patients' other health care providers; more proactive management of patient's medicine regimen; having proper patient monitoring and follow-up mechanisms, and documentation.
METHOD: This is a 6-month, single-center, prospective, randomized, two-arm, and parallel-group controlled trial. The trial recruits patients attending the otorhinolaryngology clinics of a tertiary referral hospital. Participants are randomized into control or intervention groups in a 1:1 ratio using permuted block randomization. The total number of participants estimated is 154, with each group requiring 77 participants. The control group receives standard pharmaceutical care, while the intervention group receives pharmacist-led education according to the AR-PRISE model. Both groups are assessed for middle turbinate endoscopy findings, disease severity, knowledge level, symptom control, medication adherence, and QoL at baseline and the end-of-study follow-up (day 180 ± 7). Depending on feasibility, intermediate follow-ups are conducted on days 60 ± 7 and 120 ± 7, either virtually or face-to-face. During intermediate follow-ups, participants are assessed for symptom control, medication adherence, and QoL. The intention-to-treat analysis includes all participants assigned to each group. An independent T-test compares the mean difference in knowledge level between the two groups. A two-way repeated measures ANOVA analysis is employed to determine between-group differences for scores of symptom control, adherence rate, and QoL. A P-value
METHODS: A crossover study was conducted among Year 1 and Year 2 pharmacy students. Students were invited to participate voluntarily for one OB and one CB online formative test in a chemistry module in each year. Evaluation of their learning approach and perception of the OB and CB systems of examination was conducted using Deep Information Processing (DIP) questionnaire and Student Perception questionnaire respectively. The mean performance scores of OB and CB examinations were compared.
RESULTS: Analysis of DIP scores showed that there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in the learning approach adopted for the two different examination systems. However, the mean score obtained in the OB examination was significantly higher (p < 0.01) than those obtained in the CB examination. Preference was given by a majority of students for the OB examination, possibly because it was associated with lower anxiety levels, less requirement of memorization, and more problem solving.
CONCLUSION: There is no difference in deep learning approach of students, whether the format is of the OB or CB type examinations. However, the performance of students was significantly better in OB examination than CB. Hence, using OB examination along with CB examination will be useful for student learning and help them adapt to growing and changing knowledge in pharmacy education and practice.