METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library for relevant articles published from inception to 28th February 2021. All authors were involved in the screening and selection of studies. Original studies investigating the therapeutic, humanistic, safety, and economic impact of clinical pharmacists in Pakistani patients (hospitalised or outpatients) were selected. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias in studies, and discrepancies were resolved through mutual consensus. All of the included studies were descriptively synthesised, and PRISMA reporting guidelines were followed.
RESULTS: The literature search found 751 articles from which nine studies were included; seven were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and two were observational studies. Three RCTs included were having a low risk of bias (ROB), two RCTs were having an unclear ROB, while two RCTs were having a high ROB. The nature of clinical pharmacist interventions included one or more components such as disease-related education, lifestyle changes, medication adherence counselling, medication therapy management, and discussions with physicians about prescription modification if necessary. Clinical pharmacist interventions reduce medication-related errors, improve therapeutic outcomes such as blood pressure, glycemic control, lipid control, CD4 T lymphocytes, and renal functions, and improve humanistic outcomes such as patient knowledge, adherence, and health-related quality of life. However, no study reported the economic outcomes of interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the studies included in this systematic review suggest that clinical pharmacists play important roles in improving patients' health outcomes in Pakistan; however, it should be noted that the majority of the studies have a high risk of bias, and more research with appropriate study designs is needed.
AIMS: To explore early career pharmacists' understanding of resilience, their strategies to enhance and maintain resilience as healthcare professionals and to identify resilience-fostering programmes they perceive could be implemented to support them.
METHODS: Three focus groups and 12 semi-structured interviews with a total of 15 hospital pharmacists and 10 community pharmacists (both less than 3 years post-registration) were conducted. An inductive thematic analysis of transcripts was performed to identify main themes and subthemes.
RESULTS: Pharmacists understood resilience as the capability to adapt to and learn from challenges and setbacks, which they can build through experience and exposure. Resilience in the workplace was challenged by their working environment and workload, which could lead to ego depletion, the transition from intern to registered pharmacist and working during the COVID-19 pandemic, which both added pressure and uncertainty to their role. Professional resilience was supported on individual, social and organisational levels and through self-care strategies. Pharmacists perceived mentorship and sharing experiences, experiential placements and constructive but challenging role play as potentially beneficial in building resilience during undergraduate studies and internship.
DISCUSSION: Pharmacists defined resilience constructively and identified challenges testing but also strategies supporting their resilience in the workplace. Workplaces can support pharmacists by monitoring workload and workplace relationships, creating opportunities for peer and mentor support and by allowing pharmacists to implement their personal, individualised resilience maintaining strategies. Early career pharmacists' experiences and insights would be valuable when considering the design and implementation of resilience-fostering programmes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42021286108) based on PRISMA guidelines. Cross-sectional articles on the dental students' and dental practitioners' acceptance towards COVID-19 vaccine published between March 2020 to October 2021 were searched in eight online databases. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool was employed to analyse the risk of bias (RoB) of each article, whereas the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine recommendation tool was used to evaluate the level of evidence. Data were analysed using the DerSimonian-Laird random effect model based on a single-arm approach.
RESULTS: Ten studies were included of which three studies focused on dental students and seven studies focused on dental practitioners. Four studies were deemed to exhibit moderate RoB and the remaining showed low RoB. All the studies demonstrated Level 3 evidence. Single-arm meta-analysis revealed that dental practitioners had a high level of vaccination acceptance (81.1%) than dental students (60.5%). A substantial data heterogeneity was observed with the overall I2 ranging from 73.65% and 96.86%. Furthermore, subgroup analysis indicated that dental practitioners from the Middle East and high-income countries showed greater (p < 0.05) acceptance levels, while meta-regression showed that the sample size of each study had no bearing on the degree of data heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high degree of acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination among dental practitioners, dental students still demonstrated poor acceptance. These findings highlighted that evidence-based planning with effective approaches is warranted to enhance the knowledge and eradicate vaccination hesitancy, particularly among dental students.
METHODS: Guided by the UK Medical Research Council Framework, this seminal study adopted a qualitative, descriptive approach with content analysis. Data were obtained through 16 semi-structured, in-depth interviews. Themes emerged based on an inductive process using constant comparison (Graneheim and Lundman 2004). The COREQ checklist was used in ensuring rigour.
RESULTS: Three main themes emerged includes: (1) nurses' experiences with current diabetes care practices, (2) stakeholders' views on the development of a NLFB approach, and (3) merging the nurse-led family aspects into the diabetes care. The key challenges are the dominant medical model, lack of specialist nurses, and time. The key facilitators are knowledge and social support.
CONCLUSION: The study recommends stakeholders embrace nursing empowerment strategies and involve families to enhance the nurses' advanced roles and family inclusion in healthcare.