OBJECTIVE: To examine Muslims' (1) perceptions of fasting exemptions, (2) medication usage behaviour, (3) perceptions of relationships with healthcare providers and (4) factors impacting health management during Ramadan.
METHOD: This was a qualitative study employing four focus groups (two groups of women and two groups of men). Adult Muslims (aged 18 years or more) with chronic diseases were invited to participate. Participants were asked open-ended questions about their fasting ability, medication usage behaviours, healthcare access and collaboration with providers during Ramadan. Trained researchers conducted the focus groups interviews in both English and Arabic. Each focus group was recorded, and three investigators independently transcribed the data and extracted themes and categories. Coding terminology issues were resolved through discussion.
RESULTS: Twenty-five Muslims with chronic diseases (e.g., diabetes, hypertension, renal failure and anaemia) participated. The most prominent themes/subthemes were as follows: (1) fasting exemption (e.g., uncontrolled medical conditions), (2) fasting nonexemption (e.g., controlled medical conditions), (3) nonoral medication use during Ramadan, (4) healthcare provider involvement during Ramadan, and (5) factors impacting health management during Ramadan.
CONCLUSION: Muslim patients perceive fasting as an important religious practice, so they tend to self-modify their medication-taking behaviours. Educating pharmacists and other healthcare providers about Muslim culture, especially their strong desire to fast, may lead to Muslims better managing their medications and viewing pharmacists and other healthcare providers as knowledgeable healthcare providers.
MATERIAL AND METHOD: A two-round Delphi online questionnaire was completed and validated by international experts to identify consensual items. They were asked to rate the validity of each items taking into account the recommendations and practices in their countries. Only propositions obtaining a median score in the upper tertile with an agreement of more than 75% of the panel-for the first round-and 85%-for the second round-were retained.
RESULTS: Our panel included 11 pharmacists (55%) and 9 physicians (45%). The panelists came from 12 different countries: England, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ivory Coast, Ireland, Malaysia, Portugal, Switzerland, Turkey and Vietnam. At the end of the first round, of the 105 items of the original POPI tool, 80 items were retained including 16 items reworded and 25 items were deleted. In the second round, 14 experts participated in the study. This final international POPI tool is composed of 73 IP and omissions of prescriptions in the fields of neuropsychiatry, dermatology, infectiology, pneumology, gastroenterology, pain and fever.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This study highlights international consensus on prescription practice in pediatrics. The use of this tool in everyday practice could reduce the risk of inappropriate prescription. The impact of the diffusion of POPI tool will be assessed in a prospective multicentric study.
METHODS: A qualitative study design in which 15 healthcare workers from nurses (4), pharmacists (3), medical technologies (4) and medical doctors (4) participated: two focus group of three to four participants each and eight in-depth interviews. The thematic sessions were identified, including occupational health and safety policy implementations, hazards experiences, barriers, and strategies for quality improvement for OSH. Focus groups and interviews using transcript-based analysis were identified relating to emerging themes on the challenges they had experienced while accessing provisions of OSH in their workplace.
RESULTS: Majority of the participants revealed the existence of policy on Occupational Health and Safety (provisions, guidelines and regulations on OHS from the government) and mentioned that there were limited OHS officers to supervise the healthcare workers in their workplace. Some have limited accessibility to the requirements of the implementation of OHS (free facemasks, gloves, disinfectants, machines, OSH staff, etc.) among healthcare workers, while the workload of the staff in the implementation of OHS in the workplace gradually increased. The results indicated that the respondents were knowledgeable in the implementation of OHS in the workplace, and that there was no existing ASEAN framework on the protection and promotion of the rights of healthcare workers in their workplace. Facilities need to improve health assessment, and to ensure constant evaluation of the existing laws for healthcare workers (quality assurance of existing policies) in their working areas. Direct access to OSH officers, occupational hazards education, emergency contact etc. must be improved. Adherence must be strengthened to fully comply with the OHS standards.
CONCLUSION: The researchers inferred that issues and concerns regarding compliance on provisions of occupational health and safety among health care workers must be properly addressed through immediate monitoring and reevaluation of personnel in terms of their knowledge and practices in OHS. Barriers and challenges have been identified in the study that can lead to improved compliance among healthcare workers in regards to OHS.
METHODS: Qualitative study using one-to-one semi-structured interviews conducted with 22 HCPs involved in the care of diabetic patients (6 endocrinologists, 4 general practitioners, 4 nurses and 8 pharmacists). Participants were recruited through general practices, community pharmacies and a diabetic centre in Saudi Arabia. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Five key themes resulted from the analysis. HCPs generally demonstrated negative perceptions toward CAM, particularly regarding their evidence-based effectiveness and safety. Participants described having limited interactions with diabetic patients regarding CAM use due to HCPs' lack of knowledge about CAM, limited consultation time and strict consultation protocols. Participants perceived convenience as the reason why patients use CAM. They believed many users lacked patience with prescribed medications to deliver favourable clinical outcomes and resorted to CAM use.
CONCLUSIONS: HCPs have noted inadequate engagement with diabetic patients regarding CAM due to a lack of knowledge and resources. To ensure the safe use of CAM in diabetes and optimize prescribed treatment outcomes, one must address the communication gap by implementing a flexible consultation protocol and duration. Additionally, culturally sensitive, and evidence-based information should be available to HCPs and diabetic patients.
Methods: A community-based participatory research method was utilized. Two focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted in Malaysian sign language (BIM) with a total of 10 DHH individuals. Respondents were recruited using purposive sampling. Video-recordings were transcribed and analyzed using a thematic approach.
Results: Two themes emerged: (I) challenges and scepticism of the healthcare system; and (II) features of the mHealth app. Respondents expressed fears and concerns about accessing healthcare services, and stressed on the need for sign language interpreters. There were also concerns about data privacy and security. With regard to app features, the majority preferred videos instead of text to convey information about their disease and medication, due to their lower literacy levels.
Conclusions: For an mHealth app to be effective, app designers must ensure the app is individualised according to the cultural and linguistic diversity of the target audience. Pharmacists should also educate patients on the potential benefits of the app in terms of assisting patients with their medicine-taking.
OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to identify and describe existing studies on pretravel health services provided by CPs, and the barriers, and facilitators.
METHODS: The PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for pertinent studies from their inception to February 2023. A manual search was also conducted of prominent travel medicine journals, Google Scholar, and the reference lists of the included studies. Potential barriers and facilitators were mapped to the 14 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).
RESULTS: There were twelve studies included in the review. Pretravel health advice was the most prevalent form of pretravel health services. Within ten domains of the TDF, various factors that either facilitate or impede the provision of pretravel health services by CPs were identified.
CONCLUSION: The provision of pretravel health services by CPs may be affected by a number of practitioner and organizational factors. The provision of pretravel health services can be facilitated by informational resources, training and education in travel medicine, and collaboration amongst healthcare providers.
METHODS: This is a nationwide retrospective audit on the documentation of Dabigatran Prescribing and Dispensing Checklist for a period of two years from January 2013 till December 2014. Data from these Dabigatran Checklists (indication, dose, duration, renal function and adverse drug reactions encountered) were extracted by the pharmacist at MOH healthcare facilities.
RESULTS: A total of 52 out of 56 (92.9%) of MOH facilities complied to usage of checklist at their centres involving a total of 582 patients of which 569 (97.7%) patients were initiated on dabigatran for the approved indications. The recommended dose of dabigatran was used correctly in 501 (99.6%) of patients. Reason for switching to DOACs use was only documented in 76.7% (131/171) of patients. The most common reason for switching from warfarin was poor INR control (n=39), history of bleeding/overwarfarinisation (n=22) and unable to attend regular INR clinic (n=21). There were 75 cases of adverse events reported. The most common adverse event reported were abdominal discomfort (n=10) followed by gum bleeding (n=9) and dizziness (n=5).
CONCLUSIONS: Compliance to the dabigatran check list was high with 70% of patients prescribed the appropriate dosing.
Method: The nature of patient-pharmacist counseling interactions was explored with seven patients (one focus group), and 10 practicing pharmacists (two focus groups, three semi-structured interviews). The themes identified informed the development of an online survey that was advertised online to patients and pharmacists across Australia.
Results: A total of 95 patients and 208 pharmacists completed the survey. Overall, more than half of patients (77/95) were satisfied with the care provided by their pharmacist, but only a third (71/205) of pharmacists were satisfied with the care they provided to patients. The majority of patients (67/94) reported that pharmacists provided good information about medications. This aligned with pharmacists' responses, as most reported focusing on medication side effects (118/188) and instructions for taking pain medication (93/183) during patient interactions. However, when asked about empathy and rapport from pharmacists, only half to two-thirds (48-61/95) of patients expressed positive views. Overall, half of the patients (39/75) wanted a caring, empathetic, respectful, and private conversation with the pharmacist, and nearly half (40/89) perceived the pharmacist's role as providing (new) information on alternative pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies, including general advice on pain management.
Conclusion: There was a disparity in the nature of the interaction and information that patients wanted from pharmacists, compared to what was provided by pharmacists. Training and education may help pharmacists to better engage in patient-centered care when interacting with people living with persistent pain, thereby improving health outcomes for these patients.
Methods: A cross-sectional study using a validated 20-item questionnaire was conducted among physicians (n=78) and clinical pharmacists (n=45) working in the medical wards of two tertiary hospitals in Malaysia. Knowledge was assessed by six clinical vignettes which were developed based on Beers criteria and the STOPP/START criteria. Other domains of the study were investigated using a four-point or five-point Likert scale.
Results: Of the 82 participants who completed the questionnaire, 65% were physicians, 90.2% had never received training in geriatric medicine, and 70.8% estimated that 25% or more of their patients were elderly. Only six participants (7.3%) had ever used STOPP/START or Beers criteria when prescribing for elderly patients, and 60% of the respondents had never heard of either one of those criteria. The mean score (SD) for the knowledge part was 3.65 (1.46) points, and only 27 participants (22.9%) scored more than four out of a possible six points. Overall, 34% of the participants rated themselves as confident in prescribing for elderly patients, and this was significantly associated with their knowledge score (P=0.02). The mean number (SD) of barriers cited per participant was 6.88 (2.84), with polypharmacy being the most cited barrier.
Conclusions: The majority of the participants had inadequate knowledge and low confidence regarding recommending medications for elderly patients. Continuing education on geriatric pharmacotherapy may be of value for the hospital physicians and pharmacists.