METHODS: A systematic and comprehensive articles search strategy was carried out in different seven electronic databases (PubMed, PubMed Central, Goggle Scholar, Ovid-SP, MEDLINE, Wiley Online Library, DergiPark) from 2010 to 2020. We searched to identify existing literature about cross-sectional observational studies investigating the KAP of HCPs regarding PV and ADRs reporting in different geographical regions of Turkey. Quality assessment and risk of bias were assessed among included studies.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies were chosen for full-text analysis. Finally, according to inclusion criteria, seven research articles were selected for systematic review. Overall, the KAP of HCPs varies across the studies. The lack of a standardized validated measuring tool to evaluate the KAP and differences in questionnaire items were the main limitations in included studies. Around, 69.1% (range: 54.6-100%) of HCPs were not aware of the national pharmacovigilance center in Turkey. About, 37.5% (range: 7.1-75.7%) of HCPs believed that reporting of ADRs is not important and 87.5% (range: 69.3-100%) stated that they never reported ADR previously during their practice. The most frequently highlighted barriers to PV were lack of time, uncertainty and did not know where to report.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review revealed a major KAP gap in Turkey towards PV activities. Low ADR reporting practice of HCPs was a major identified issue. The creation of a mandatory unified PV education intervention for future HCPs to rationally report ADR of drugs are crucial for a better healthcare system.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to identify and assess the efficacy of pharmaceutical care services in various pharmaceutical aspects throughout seventeen Middle Eastern nations.
METHOD: The Arkesy and O'Malley technique was used to conduct a scoping review. It was conducted using PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Springer Link, Clinical Trials, and Web of Science etc. The Van Tulder Scale was utilized in randomized trials research, whereas the dawn and black checklists were used in non-randomized trials research. A descriptive and numerical analysis of selected research was done. The scope of eligible PCs, pharmaceutical implementers, study outcomes, and quality were all identified by a thematic review of research.
RESULTS: There were about 431,753 citations found in this study, and 129 publications were found to be eligible for inclusion after analysing more than 271 full-text papers. The study design was varied, with 43 (33.3%) RCTs and 86 (66.7%) n-RCTs. Thirty-three (25.6%) of the studies were published in 2020. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey were home to the majority of the studies (25.6%, 16.3%, and 11.6%) respectively. Thirty-seven studies (19.7%) were concerned with resolving drug related problems (DRPs), whereas 27 (14.4%) were concerned with increasing quality of life (QOL) and 23 (12.2%) with improving drug adherence. Additionally, the research revealed that the average ratings of the activities provided to patients improved every year.
CONCLUSION: Studies in the Middle East continue to provide evidence supporting the positive impact of pharmaceutical care services on both hard and soft outcomes measured in most studies. Yet there was rare focus on the value of the implemented services. Thus, rigorous evaluation of the economic impact of implemented pharmaceutical care services in the Middle East and assessment of their sustainability is must.