METHOD: A qualitative methodological approach was performed between March-May 2018. Semi-structured interviews were used to explore current RT policy and service availability. Key-informants were identified from a detailed stakeholder analysis of RT system in Malaysia. Interviews were digitally audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded with ATLAS.ti software and underwent thematic analysis thoroughly.

RESULTS: Eight key-informants participated in the study. Barriers and related solutions were classified using the socio-ecological model (SEM). As reported, the barriers and solutions of RT in Malaysia are the results of a complex interplay of personal, cultural, and environmental factors. Key barriers are linked to public's attitude and perception towards RT and the unaccommodating practices in the healthcare fraternity for RT. Key-informants provided a systematic solution that shed light on how RT could be improved at each SEM level via effective communication, education and inter-agency collaboration.

Methods: A qualitative approach was used to conduct this study. A semi-structured interview guide was developed, 10 hospital pharmacists were recruited and interviewed through convenience sampling technique. All interviews were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim, and were then analyzed for thematic contents analysis.

Results: Thematic content analysis of the interviews resulted in 6 major themes, including (1) Familiarity with medication safety & adverse drug reaction concept (2) Current system of practice and reporting of adverse drug reaction in hospital setting, (3) Willingness to accept the practice change (4) Barriers to adverse drug reaction reporting, (5) Policy change needs and (6) The recognition of the role. Majority of the hospital pharmacists were familiar with the concept of medication safety and ADR reactions reporting however they were unaware of the existence of national ADR reporting system in Pakistan. Several barriers hindering ADR reporting were identified including lack of awareness and training, communication gap between the hospitals and regulatory authorities.

METHODS: A qualitative approach was used to gain an in-depth knowledge of the issues. By using a semi-structured interview guide, 12 CPs practicing in the city of Lahore, Pakistan were conveniently selected. All interviews were audio-taped, transcribed verbatim, and were then analyzed for thematic contents by the standard content analysis framework.

RESULTS: Thematic content analysis yielded five major themes. (1) Familiarity with EPS, (2) current practice of EPS, (3) training needed to provide EPS, (4) acceptance of EPS and (5) barriers toward EPS. Majority of the CPs were unaware of EPS and only a handful had the concept of extended services. Although majority of our study respondents were unaware of pharmaceutical care, they were ready to accept practice change if provided with the required skills and training. Lack of personal knowledge, poor public awareness, inadequate physician-pharmacist collaboration and deprived salary structures were reported as barriers towards the provision of EPS at the practice settings.

METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital in Karachi in September 2017, using grounded theory and inductive approach. Interviews were conducted using a checklist in Urdu language from patients of chronic illnesses determined based on medicines dispensed from the out-patient pharmacy in hospital. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, translated in English and validated. The translated quotations were analysed using a qualitative analysis software, and thematic analysis was conducted. Codes were generated and analysed by semantic linkages and network analysis using ATLAS.ti qualitative research software.

RESULTS: Of the 16 patients interviewed, 8(50%) were males and 8(50%) were females. Barriers to medication adherence identified were patient behaviour (intentional and un-intentional non-adherence), comorbidity and pill burden, cost-related non-adherence, and low patient knowledge. The last barrier was associated with the rest.

Aim: The objective of this study was to assess the school environment by interviewing the teachers and compare the school environment score between rural and urban schools in Terengganu, Malaysia.

Methods: Thirty-two teachers from 16 primary schools in Terengganu were interviewed using a set of validated Malay version "School Environmental Mapping" questionnaire. A total of 76 items consisting of four domains of school environment factor: physical (what is available) with 41 items; economic (what the costs are) with nine items; political (what the rules are) with nine items; and socio-cultural (what the attitudes and beliefs are) with 17 items. Every item was questioned using an initial closed question followed by an open question when the criteria were not met or need further information regarding those particular items.

Results: The present study revealed that the school environment of school in state of Terengganu is still low and not satisfied. Based on the schoolteacher's information and observation, there are significant barriers to promoting healthy eating and physical activity at school e.g. limited financial and budget allocation; lack of school facilities; lack of manpower to organise and monitor the programme; lack of participation and cooperation from parents; and no enforcement and serious action from authorized personnel on street hawkers near the school. This is reflected by the score achieved for 16 schools in Terengganu was only 63.05%. The political environment indicated the highest score among the domains, which was 77.78%, whereas, the lowest score was an economic environment (50.00%). Upon comparing between the urban and rural areas, the present study reported that there was a significant difference between school settings (p < 0.001) for an overall school environment, in which the rural areas had a significantly higher score than urban counterparts (64.86% vs 59.34%, p < 0.001). For each domain of the school environment, the findings showed that only two domains (physical and political environment) were significantly different between school settings.