EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SETTING: Community pharmacists attended a one-day workshop, supplemented with comprehensive training materials which enabled participants to conduct similar sessions with their peers at their own time. The workshop, consisting of case study discussion and role plays, was designed to be an engaging and interactive program that combined traditional didactic sessions and experiential, discussion-based learning. A pre- and post-workshop questionnaire were administered immediately before and after the event to all attending participants.
FINDINGS: Core concepts covered in the workshop included: (1) overview of an ageing population, (2) issues with ageing population, (3) medication review, and (4) dietary requirements and dosage forms in older adults. Participants' (n = 39) noted significant improvements in knowledge (mean score change 0.7, p
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Amman, the capital and largest city of Jordan, using a validated questionnaire. It was distributed to pharmacists working in community and hospital pharmacies using a convenience sampling technique. Descriptive and inferential statistics were performed in this study.
RESULTS: A total of 340 questionnaires distributed, 300 (88%) pharmacists responded. Over 50% of pharmacists claimed that they have sufficient knowledge regarding FDI. Virtually, the overall median (interquartile range) knowledge score was 18 (15-21), approximately 60%. The highest knowledge scores were for alcohol-drug interactions section (66.6%) followed by both common food-drug interactions and the timing of drug intake to food consumption sections with a score of (58.3%) for each, reflecting a suboptimal knowledge of FDIs among the pharmacists.
CONCLUSION: Pharmacists had unsatisfactory knowledge about common FDIs, with no significant difference between hospital and community pharmacists. Therefore, more attention and efforts should be played to improve awareness about potential food-drug interactions.
METHODS: This is a cross-sectional descriptive study that was conducted to evaluate perception and experience of pharmacists with the use of Internet-based medication information by their patients. During the study period, 200 pharmacists were approached to participate in the study using a paper-based survey to assess their perceptions and current experience with the use of Internet-based medication information by their patients. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (mean/standard deviation for continuous variables, and frequency/percentages for qualitative variables). Also, simple linear regression was utilized to screen factors affecting pharmacists' perception scores of the use of Internet-based medication information.
RESULTS: Among 161 recruited pharmacists, the majority (n = 129, 80.1%) reported receiving inquiries from patients about Internet-based medication information within the last year. Among them, only 22.6% (n = 29) of pharmacists believed that Internet-based medication information is somewhat or very accurate. Unfortunately, only 24.2% (n = 31) of them stated that they always had enough time for their patient to discuss their Internet-based medication information. Regarding pharmacists' perception of the use of Internet-based medication information by their patients, more than half of the pharmacists (>50%) believe that Internet-based medication information could increase the patient's role in taking responsibility. On the other hand, 54.7% (n = 88) of the pharmacists believed that Internet-based medication information would contribute to rising the healthcare cost by obtaining unnecessary medications by patients. Finally, pharmacists' educational level was found to significantly affect their perception scores toward patient use of Internet-based medication information where those with higher educational level showed lower perception score (r = -0.200, P-value = 0.011).
CONCLUSION: Although pharmacists felt that usage of Internet-based data by patients is beneficial, they also have believed that it has a negative impact in terms of rising the healthcare cost, and it promotes unnecessary fear or concern about medications. We suggest that pharmacists be trained on principles of critical appraisal to become professional in retrieval information on the Internet that might improve their delivery of healthcare information and their recommendations to patients.
OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the HL communication practices among physicians, pharmacists, and nurses serving at public hospitals in Penang, Malaysia.
METHODS: A pretested, self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data from study participants of 6 public hospitals using stratified sampling. Descriptive and inferential statistics used to analyze the data with level of significance was set at P < 0.05.
RESULTS: Of 600 distributed questionnaires, 526 (87.6%) were adequately filled and returned. Almost 19.0% (n = 98) of the respondents admitted that they did not frequently use simple language and avoid medical jargon during communication with patients. Only about half of the respondents reported frequently using other HL communication practices that include handing out education material to patients (52.2%, n = 275), asking the patient to repeat information (58.9%, n = 310), and asking patients' caregivers to be present during explanation (57.4%, n = 302). Comparatively, drawing pictures to ease patients' understanding (40.1%, n = 211) was the less-frequently practiced HL communication techniques. Health practitioners in the age group >41 years ( P = 0.046), serving 10 years and more ( P = 0.03) and those who have heard the term or concept of HL ( P = 0.004) have statistically significantly higher mean score of HL communication practices than other groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The gap in the HL communication practices among physicians, pharmacists, and nurses warrants educational intervention, and standardized HL communication techniques guidelines are needed in the near future.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the perceptions of Malaysian hospital pharmacists and patients on the barriers and facilitators of a PCC approach in pharmacist consultations.
DESIGN: This study employed a qualitative, explorative semi-structured interview design.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Interviews were conducted with 17 patients and 18 pharmacists from three tertiary hospitals in Malaysia. The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Emerging themes were developed through a constant comparative approach and thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Three themes were identified in this study: (i) patient-related factors (knowledge, role expectations, and sociocultural characteristics), (ii) pharmacist-related factors (personalities and communication), and (iii) healthcare institutional and system-related factors (resources, continuity of care, and interprofessional collaboration). Pharmacists and patients mentioned that factors such as patients' knowledge and attitudes and pharmacists' personality traits and communication styles can affect patients' engagement in the consultation. Long waiting time and insufficient manpower were perceived as barriers to the practice of PCC. Continuity of care and interprofessional collaboration were viewed as crucial in providing supportive and tailored care to patients.
CONCLUSION: The study findings outlined the potential factors of PCC that may influence its implementation in pharmacist consultations. Strategic approaches can be undertaken by policymakers, healthcare institutions, and pharmacists themselves to address the identified barriers to more fully support the implementation of PCC in the pharmacy setting.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of a service containing self-management support delivered by community pharmacists to patients with asthma.
METHODS: A systematic search was performed in the following databases from inception to January 2017: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library's Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) Plus, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and PsycInfo. Original studies were selected if they met the following criteria: (a) provided by community pharmacists; (b) the intervention service included the essential components of asthma self-management; (c) included a usual care group; and (d) measured control/severity of asthma symptoms, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), or medication adherence.
RESULTS: Of the 639 articles screened, 12 studies involving 2,121 asthma patients were included. Six studies were randomized trials, and the other 6 were nonrandomized trials. Patients with asthma who received a self-management support service by community pharmacists had better symptom control/lower severity compared with those receiving usual care (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.09-0.82) with high heterogeneity (I2=82.6%; P = 0.000). The overall improvement in HRQOL and medication adherence among patients in the asthma self-management support group was greater than for those in the usual care group with SMD of 0.23 (95% CI = 0.12-0.34) and 0.44 (95% CI = 0.27-0.61), respectively. Evidence of heterogeneity was not observed in these 2 outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Self-management support service provided by community pharmacists can help improve symptom control, quality of life, and medication adherence in patients with asthma.
DISCLOSURES: This study received financial support from Naresuan University's Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences Research Fund. Two authors, Saini and Krass, have studies that were included in this review. However, they were not involved in the processes that could bias outcomes of the present study, that is, quality assessment and meta-analysis. The remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
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 cross-sectional study was conducted using a validated self-administered questionnaire. A convenience sample of 147 community pharmacists working in community pharmacies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
RESULTS: The questionnaire was distributed to 147 pharmacists, of whom 104 responded to the survey, a 70.7% response rate. The mean age of participants was 29 years. The majority (n = 101, 98.1%) had graduated with a bachelorette degree and worked in chain pharmacies (n = 68, 66.7%). Only 23 (22.1%) said they were familiar with the ADR reporting process, and only 21 (20.2%) knew that pharmacists can submit ADR reports online. The majority of the participants (n = 90, 86.5%) had never reported ADRs. Reasons for not reporting ADRs most importantly included lack of awareness about the method of reporting (n = 22, 45.9%), misconception that reporting ADRs is the duty of physician and hospital pharmacist (n = 8, 16.6%) and ADRs in community pharmacies are simple and should not be reported (n = 8, 16.6%). The most common approach perceived by community pharmacists for managing patients suffering from ADRs was to refer him/her to a physician (n = 80, 76.9%).
CONCLUSION: The majority of community pharmacists in Riyadh have poor knowledge of the ADR reporting process. Pharmacovigilance authorities should take necessary steps to urgently design interventional programs in order to increase the knowledge and awareness of pharmacists regarding the ADR reporting process.
AIMS: The aim of this study was to establish the feasibility, and to investigate the impact, of community pharmacy-based educational intervention on knowledge, practice, and disease management of patients with hypertension in Western Nepal.
METHOD: A single-cohort pre-/post-intervention study was conducted from August 2012 to April 2013. The participants included in the study were patients diagnosed with hypertension attending a pharmacist-led hypertension clinic. The educational intervention was conducted by pharmacists, was individualised, and consisted of three counselling sessions over a period of six months. The patients' knowledge of hypertension, their practice of lifestyle modification and non-pharmacological approaches concerning hypertension management, and blood pressure were assessed at baseline and again after nine months by using a pre-validated questionnaire.
RESULTS: Fifty patients met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled in the study. The median (IQR) knowledge score changed from 6 (4) to 13 (0) after the intervention (p<0.01) with the median (IQR) practice score changing from 7 (4) to 16 (2) (p<0.01). The mean (SD) systolic BP changed from 150.1 (7.8) to 137.7 (9.9) (p<0.01) and the mean (SD) diastolic BP from 104 (9.5) to 94.5 (7.8) after the intervention (p< 0.01).
CONCLUSION: A simple, educational intervention by community pharmacists had improved patients' disease knowledge, practice, and management of their hypertension. Evidence suggests Nepalese community pharmacists need could play an important role in the management of chronic diseases like hypertension through simple interventions such as providing educational support for patients.