Purpose: This study aimed to assess pharmacy students' knowledge and attitudes towards geriatric pharmacy education and older patients to determine their preparation in delivering appropriate medical care to the geriatric population.
Methods: Self-administered questionnaires were distributed among pharmacy students in different Malaysian universities. The survey included several sections to assess multiple aspects such as sociodemographic information, assessment of knowledge using a validated 28-item Geriatric Knowledge Assessment Scale (GKAS), and attitudes towards geriatrics education.
Results: The response rate was around 70% of the respondents. The mean (± standard deviation) age of the cohort was 22.28 (±1.12) years. Despite around 78% of pharmacy students claiming that their knowledge of geriatric care is adequate, their GKAS score showed that only around 20% have high geriatric knowledge. Around 80% of them showed a positive attitude on the importance of taking courses focused on geriatric care and demonstrated interest to further knowledge and training in geriatric care. However, more than half of the students were uncertain of their answers towards their attitudes regarding older patients.
Conclusion: Given the growing role of pharmacists in the ageing population, this study highlights the importance of geriatric care education among potential pharmacists. Therefore, we urge the need to improve/develop geriatrics education and training into the pharmacy curriculum to ensure sufficient preparation for actual practice after graduation.
METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional study was conducted among ten pharmacy colleges in Yemen, offering undergraduate pharmacy programs. A stratified sample of 518 students from the included universities were surveyed using a well-structured, validated and self-administered questionnaire. Chi-square, Mann-Whitney U, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were conducted at an alpha level of 0.05.
RESULTS: Four hundred and seventy-five (475) participants were included (92.9% response rate). More than 17% (n=84) of participants were involved in Pharm.D program, and nearly 29.9% (n=142) preferred pharmaceutical marketing as a career after graduation. About 65% of participants recognized the purpose of PC, and pharmacists' role within PC. However, only 43.8% (n=208) knew the difference between clinical pharmacy and PC. About 82% of respondents showed very good attitudes toward PC. Pharm.D students showed higher attitudes' total scores, median (IQR): 4.3 (4.1-4.4), 4.2 (4-4.2) and 4 (3.9-4.2) for Pharm.D, bachelor of pharmacy and bachelor of clinical pharmacy respectively, (p-value = 0.032). Moreover, students who currently employed in pharmacy-related job during their study were also associated with high attitudes scores compared to unemployed students, median (IQR): 4.2 (4-4.4) and 4(3.9-4.1) respectively (p-value = 0.023). "Lack of access to the patient medical record in the pharmacy" and "inadequate (hospital and community pharmacy) internship period" were the top reported barriers with 81.5% (n=387) agreement.
CONCLUSION: Although PC is in its infancy in Yemen, pharmacy students showed positive attitudes toward practicing PC. Educational institutions should exert efforts for curricular revision to improve understanding, and overcome the reported barriers in the future.
METHODS: A 23-item survey instrument that included a question on the bioequivalence limits and Likert-type scale questions regarding the understanding and perceptions of generic medicines among the students was executed. Cronbach's alpha was found to be 0.62.
RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 236 final-year Doctor of Pharmacy students (n=85 from a publicly funded institute; n=151 from a privately funded institute). When comparing a brand-name medicine to a generic medicine, pharmacy students scored poorly on bioequivalence limits. More than 80% of the students incorrectly answered that all the products that are rated as generic equivalents are therapeutically equivalent to each other (P<0.04). Half of the students agreed that a generic medicine is bioequivalent to the brand-name medicine (P<0.001). With regard to quality, effectiveness, and safety, more than 75% of the students disagreed that generic medicines are of inferior quality and are less effective than brand-name medicines (P<0.001). More than 50% of the students disagreed that generic medicines produce more side effects than brand-name medicines (P<0.001).
CONCLUSION: The current study identified a positive perception toward generic medicines but also gaps in the understanding of generic medicines. Pharmacy students lacked a thorough understanding of the concepts of bioequivalence. Pharmacy academia should address these issues, which will help build confidence in generic medicines and increase the generic medicine use in Pakistan.
METHODS: This pre- and post-intervention study was conducted in Sana'a, Yemen's capital city, at the University of Science and Technology Hospital. The study was done between 11/2021-12/2021, and two separate educational sessions were held. The McNemar's test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were employed as necessary.
RESULTS: Participants' awareness of the Framingham CVD risk calculator improved significantly from 40.4% pre-intervention to 78.7% post-intervention. Similarly, understanding of the parameters used in the 10-year ASCVD Risk calculator rose from 46.8% pre-intervention to 76.6% post-intervention. The ability to identify high, moderate, and low-intensity statin therapy, for instance, increased from 34% to 63.8% post-intervention. Regarding statins' contraindications, safety, and efficacy monitoring parameters, pre-intervention knowledge was unsatisfactory, and the educational intervention improved it significantly (p <0.05). For physicians, the median ASCVD risk assessment knowledge score was significantly improved from 4 (IQR = 3-5) pre-intervention to 7 (6.25-8) immediately post-intervention, while the statin therapy clinical knowledge median score significantly improved from 3 (1.25-6.5) to 9 (7.25-14.75) post-education intervention, p-values were 0.002 and 0.003; respectively. For pharmacists, a similar significant improvement (p <0.05) in the overall knowledge scores for both ASCVD risk assessment and statin therapy was noted.
CONCLUSION: The educational intervention improved participants' knowledge of statin therapy and ASCVD risk assessment. Therefore, further education lectures and training programs through continuing medical education on the up-to-date guidelines' recommendations should be regularly implemented to raise awareness and improve the clinical knowledge and appropriateness of statins use in clinical settings..