METHODS: A cross-sectional online study involving 455 undergraduate students at Universiti Teknologi MARA Cawangan Selangor (UCS) was conducted using a 74-item survey distributed via Google Forms. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 29.
RESULTS: Most participants exhibited high EI (53.3 %), average knowledge (53.2 %), positive perception, and high readiness for telepharmacy. EI positively correlated with both perception (p
OBJECTIVES: On this basis, a study was conducted in a district hospital to study the therapy outcomes of antibiotic regimens used in pediatric community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) management and to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CE) between IV ampicillin versus combination therapy of IV ampicillin and IV gentamicin.
METHOD: A prospective, randomized, controlled, single blind study was conducted in a pediatric ward in a 80-bed district hospital. Pediatric patients diagnosed with CAP aged 2 months to 5 years old were randomly and equally divided into two treatment arms: ampicillin versus ampicillin plus gentamicin. The dose of IV ampicillin used in this study was 100 mg/kg/day divided every 6 h and 5 mg/kg of IV gentamicin as a single daily dose. Both clinical and economic evaluations were carried out to compare both treatment arms.
RESULTS: With the inclusion and exclusion criteria, only 40 patients diagnosed with CAP were included in the study. The results showed that the two treatment arms were significantly different (P < 0.05) in terms of duration of patients on ampicillin, number of days of hospitalization and time to switch to oral therapy. A significant difference was noted between the two treatment modalities in terms of effectiveness and cost (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Overall, the endpoint of this study showed that the total cost per patient of ampicillin-treated group is cheaper than the total cost with the combination therapy (ampicillin plus gentamicin) and reduced unnecessary exposure to adverse effects or toxicities. Besides that, addition of gentamicin in the treatment modalities will only increase the cost of treatment without introducing any changes in the treatment outcome.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was carried out at 10 different dental hospitals in Pakistan from March to June 2020. A 35 items valid and reliable questionnaire was used to assess the concerns, perceived impact, and preparedness of oral healthcare workers (OHCW) in COVID-19 pandemic. Chi-squared test and logistic regression were used for analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 583 OHCW participated in this study. The odds of having the awareness about the risk of exposure and fear of getting infected, were greater in the clinical than non-clinical OHCW (OR: 52.6; OR: 15.9). For social network concerns, the clinical OHCW were more likely to be concerned about their colleagues (OR: 6.0). The clinical OHCW have greater odds of worrying about telling the family/friends about the risk exposed to (OR: 2.55), being avoided because of the job (OR: 3.20) and more likely to be feeling stressed (OR: 4.31). Less than 50% of the participants felt that their institutions are well prepared and only 12.6% had attended an infection control training session. Most participants practiced self-preparation such as buying masks and disinfection (94.3%, 98.3%).
CONCLUSION: The majority of OHCW felt concerned about their risk of exposure to infection and falling ill from exposure and infecting friends/family. There is a need for training of infection control and PPE and minimizing fear and psychological impact on OHCW should be the priority in any preparedness and planning for combating COVID-19.