METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional study to evaluate the quality and risks of websites discussing TA supplements was conducted. Online marketing websites, research articles, news articles, personal opinions, and those restricted by password were excluded. The quality and risks of websites were assessed using a modified DISCERN tool and a set of risk assessment criteria, respectively. The health claims for TA were identified and analyzed using content analysis.
RESULTS: Overall, 321 websites met the inclusion criteria and were further evaluated. The overall rating of the quality of the websites was low, with a mean score ± standard deviation of 1.07 ± 0.51. Most websites lacked information that there may be more than one possible treatment choice and did not discuss areas of uncertainty. However, 67.9% (218/321) of the websites received a risk score of zero. A minority of websites (5/321, 1.6%) discouraged the use of conventional medicines. The most common health claims for TA included in the websites related to the enhancement of testosterone level (121/321, 37.7%), treatment of malaria (112/321, 34.9%), and improvement in libido (108/321, 33.6%).
CONCLUSIONS: Websites containing information about TA supplements generally have a low-quality rating based on a modified DISCERN tool despite having a low-risk score. Government agencies and healthcare professionals (HCPs) must be more proactive in the critique and dissemination of information relating to HM, and in ensuring the safe use of HM among the public and patients.
METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional observational study was conducted among the patients admitted to the medical and surgical wards in a public hospital located in Brunei Darussalam between February 2022 and April 2022. Hospitalized adults above 18 years old with regular medications with a minimum length of stay of 48 h and a maximum length of stay of 21 days were included in the study. These eligible patients were divided into a POM group and a non-POM group. The economic analysis of using POM was performed by calculating the direct cost per unit of medication used during admission (from unit-use, ward stock and POM) and comparing the cost spent for both groups. Expired ward stock deemed as medication wastage was determined. Medical research ethics were approved, and all participating patients had given their written informed consent before enrolling in this study.
RESULTS: A total of 112 patients aged 63.2 ± 15.8 years participated in this study. The average cost of medication supplied by the inpatient pharmacy for the non-POM group was USD 21.60 ± 34.20 per patient, whereas, for the POM group, it was approximately USD 13.00 ± 18.30 per patient, with a mean difference of USD 8.60 ± 5.17 per patient (95% CI: -3.95, 27.47, p ≥ 0.05). The use of POM minimized 54.03% (USD 625.04) of the total cost spent by the hospital for the POM group within the period of the study.
CONCLUSION: The pilot study showed that the supplied medication cost per patient was not significantly different between the POM and non-POM groups. Nevertheless, the utilization of POM during hospitalization is capable of reducing at least 50% of the total cost spent on inpatient medications by the hospital. The use of POM during hospitalization also helped in reducing the total time spent on the medication process per patient.