DESIGN AND SETTING: Self-administered questionnaires (in English, Malay, or Chinese) were provided to customers at three community pharmacies in Malaysia (Ipoh, Perak). Questionnaire validation and translation validation were performed. A pilot study was conducted before actual questionnaire distribution. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.
RESULTS: Total number of participants was 270 (99 males and 171 females) with majority from the 31-50 age group (41.5%). Among the participants, 45.6% were herbal users. The most commonly used herbal supplements were evening primrose oil (17.9%), ginkgo biloba (13.0%), and milk thistle (8.5%). The participants seemed to have sufficient knowledge regarding herbal supplements including safety, quality, and indication of use from medical literature. Participants obtained information about herbal supplements from pharmacists (26.9%), package inserts (25.2%), friends (20.5%), and the Internet (13.3%) more often than from their doctors (9.8%). Most herbal users did not inform their doctors about their usage of herbal supplements (68.3%) or the side effects (61.5%). Herbal supplement users also tended to be women, >50-year-old, and those with higher monthly household incomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Community pharmacists have a vital role in educating their customers about the safe use of herbal supplements. The participants had sufficient knowledge about herbal supplement usage; therefore, customers of these community pharmacies may have benefitted from the advice of the pharmacists. Further studies could be carried out in future on the knowledge, skills and roles of community pharmacists in the safe use of herbal supplements.
Methods: A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was conducted among 103 pharmacists from 74 different community pharmacies to assess their knowledge about the use of herbal medicines and its adverse drug reaction reporting by using a pre-validate knowledge questionnaire consisting of 12 questions related to it. The pharmacists' responses were measured at a 3-point Likert scale (Poor=1, Moderate=2, and Good=3) and data was entered in SPSS version 22. The minimum and maximum possible scores for knowledge questionnaires were 12 and 36 respectively. Quantitative data was analyzed by using One Way ANOVA and Paired t-test whereas Chi-square and Fisher exact test were used for qualitative data analysis. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all the analyses.
Results: About 92% of the pharmacist had good knowledge regarding the use of herbal medicines and its adverse drug reaction reporting with a mean knowledge score of 32.88±3.16. One-way ANOVA determined a significant difference of employment setting (p<0.043) and years of experience (<0.008) with mean knowledge scores of Pharmacists. Pharmacists' knowledge was significantly associated with their years of experience with the Chi-square test.
Conclusion: Pharmacists exhibit good knowledge regarding the use of herbal medicines and its adverse drug reaction reporting. However, with an increasing trend of herbal medicine use and its adverse drug reaction reporting it recalls the empowerment of experienced pharmacists with training programs in this area for better clinical outcomes.
Methods: The cross-sectional study was conducted from August 2019 to November 2019. The community pharmacies, clinical and academic settings in Karachi were approached for gathering the responses of pharmacists towards BSMs and interchangeable products using a 30-item survey form. Pearson correlation and independent sample t-test were used to identify the relationship among independent variables and the responses, considering p values <0.05 as statistically significant.
Results: Overall, there were 305 survey forms used with a response rate of 87.14%. More than 80% of the respondents have good knowledge about the definition, characteristics, safety and efficacy, compatibility, cost issues, and utilization of BSMs. Around half of the respondents (48.9%, [95% CI 46.6-51.2]) were confident in using BSMs in clinical practice. However, they were concerned about the BSM's safety profile (45.2%, [95% CI 42.1-48.3]), quality (30.2%, [95% CI 28.3-32.1]), and efficacy issues (32.3%, [95% CI 31.2-37.5]).
Conclusion: The findings revealed that pharmacists were well informed about the BSMs. However, some of the responses to the attitude demonstrated a lack of understanding of the application of that knowledge. The respondents persuaded that advanced patterns of diseases, product marketing stipulations, and need for better patient care drives higher demand for developing BSMs and were enthusiastic about gaining more insight to integrate BSMs into routine clinical practice.
Objective: The aim of this study was to determine knowledge, awareness and preparedness regarding coronavirus disease 2019 among CPPs working in Kathmandu, Nepal.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a convenience sampling method from 10 February to 25 March 2020. Data were analysed descriptively, and one-sample independent t-test and one-way analysis of variance were used to compare scores among different subgroups of respondents (p
Method: We used pharmacy dispensing data of 1461 eligible T2DM patients from public primary care clinics in Malaysia treated with oral antidiabetic drugs between January 2018 and May 2019. Adherence rates were calculated during the period preceding the HbA1c measurement. Adherence cut-off values for the following conditions were compared: adherence measure (MPR versus PDC), assessment period (90-day versus 180-day), and HbA1c target (⩽7.0% versus ⩽8.0%).
Results: The optimal adherence cut-offs for MPR and PDC in predicting HbA1c ⩽7.0% ranged between 86.1% and 98.3% across the two assessment periods. In predicting HbA1c ⩽8.0%, the optimal adherence cut-offs ranged from 86.1% to 92.8%. The cut-off value was notably higher with PDC as the adherence measure, shorter assessment period, and a stricter HbA1c target (⩽7.0%) as outcome.
Conclusion: We found that optimal adherence cut-off appeared to be slightly higher than the conventional value of 80%. The adherence thresholds may vary depending on the length of assessment period and outcome definition but a reasonably wise cut-off to distinguish good versus poor medication adherence to be clinically meaningful should be at 90%.