Assessment of knowledge and counselling on ophthalmic preparations among community pharmacists in Ibadan, Nigeria – an intervention study

A. A. Aje, Mathew O. Akinola
{"title":"Assessment of knowledge and counselling on ophthalmic preparations among community pharmacists in Ibadan, Nigeria – an intervention study","authors":"A. A. Aje, Mathew O. Akinola","doi":"10.51412/psnnjp.2022.22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The ratio of patients to ophthalmologists is rather high, affording inadequate time for patient interaction, especially on the use of ophthalmic preparations. An assessment of community pharmacists' knowledge and counselling on ophthalmic preparations is vital to maintaining quality of care received by patients. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out among consented community pharmacists practicing in Ibadan metropolis in southwest Nigeria, who were randomized into control and intervention arms. Baseline assessment of their knowledge and counselling on ophthalmic preparations was done. An educational intervention was then carried out among the intervention pharmacists. Postintervention assessment was carried out to evaluate the effect of the intervention. Data was summarized with descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: A total of 115 (control arm-62; intervention arm-53) community pharmacists participated in the study. Percentage of community pharmacists who understood punctal occlusion (control vs intervention) increased from 21.0% vs 22.6% at baseline to 45.4% vs 83.0% postintervention. Preintervention (control vs intervention), 83.9% vs 81.1% knew that eye drop bottle tip should not touch the eyes during application. This improved postintervention to 82.3% vs 100%. A significant difference in participants' knowledge and counselling on ophthalmic preparations was observed postintervention. Participants' knowledge comparison (control vs intervention) was 7.79 ± 1.79 vs 7.60 ± 1.65 (p = 0.565) and 8.89 ± 1.73 vs 10.83 ± 1.63 (p < 0.001) at baseline and postintervention, respectively. The counselling comparison (control vs intervention) was 2.82 ± 1.93 vs 2.57 ± 1.91 (p = 0.476) at baseline, and 2.97 ± 2.48 vs 5.98 ± 1.69 (p < 0.001) postintervention. Conclusion: The educational intervention, which addressed the knowledge and counselling gaps discovered at baseline, improved the community pharmacists' knowledge and counselling on ophthalmic preparations.","PeriodicalId":168366,"journal":{"name":"The Nigerian Journal of Pharmacy","volume":"163 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Nigerian Journal of Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51412/psnnjp.2022.22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The ratio of patients to ophthalmologists is rather high, affording inadequate time for patient interaction, especially on the use of ophthalmic preparations. An assessment of community pharmacists' knowledge and counselling on ophthalmic preparations is vital to maintaining quality of care received by patients. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out among consented community pharmacists practicing in Ibadan metropolis in southwest Nigeria, who were randomized into control and intervention arms. Baseline assessment of their knowledge and counselling on ophthalmic preparations was done. An educational intervention was then carried out among the intervention pharmacists. Postintervention assessment was carried out to evaluate the effect of the intervention. Data was summarized with descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: A total of 115 (control arm-62; intervention arm-53) community pharmacists participated in the study. Percentage of community pharmacists who understood punctal occlusion (control vs intervention) increased from 21.0% vs 22.6% at baseline to 45.4% vs 83.0% postintervention. Preintervention (control vs intervention), 83.9% vs 81.1% knew that eye drop bottle tip should not touch the eyes during application. This improved postintervention to 82.3% vs 100%. A significant difference in participants' knowledge and counselling on ophthalmic preparations was observed postintervention. Participants' knowledge comparison (control vs intervention) was 7.79 ± 1.79 vs 7.60 ± 1.65 (p = 0.565) and 8.89 ± 1.73 vs 10.83 ± 1.63 (p < 0.001) at baseline and postintervention, respectively. The counselling comparison (control vs intervention) was 2.82 ± 1.93 vs 2.57 ± 1.91 (p = 0.476) at baseline, and 2.97 ± 2.48 vs 5.98 ± 1.69 (p < 0.001) postintervention. Conclusion: The educational intervention, which addressed the knowledge and counselling gaps discovered at baseline, improved the community pharmacists' knowledge and counselling on ophthalmic preparations.
评估尼日利亚伊巴丹社区药剂师关于眼科制剂的知识和咨询——一项干预研究
背景:患者与眼科医生的比例相当高,患者互动的时间不足,特别是在眼科制剂的使用上。评估社区药剂师对眼科制剂的知识和咨询对于维持患者获得的护理质量至关重要。方法:对尼日利亚西南部伊巴丹市社区执业药师进行横断面研究,随机分为对照组和干预组。对他们的眼科制剂知识进行基线评估和咨询。然后对参与干预的药师进行教育干预。进行干预后评估以评估干预效果。数据用描述性和推断性统计进行汇总。结果:共115例(对照组62例;干预组(53)社区药剂师参与了研究。了解点位闭塞(对照组与干预组)的社区药师比例从基线时的21.0%对22.6%增加到干预后的45.4%对83.0%。干预前(对照组vs干预组),83.9% vs 81.1%知道滴眼液瓶头在使用过程中不应接触眼睛。干预后,这一比例从100%提高到82.3%。干预后观察到参与者对眼科制剂的知识和咨询有显著差异。在基线和干预后,参与者的知识比较(对照组与干预组)分别为7.79±1.79 vs 7.60±1.65 (p = 0.565)和8.89±1.73 vs 10.83±1.63 (p < 0.001)。咨询比较(对照组与干预组)基线时为2.82±1.93 vs 2.57±1.91 (p = 0.476),干预后为2.97±2.48 vs 5.98±1.69 (p < 0.001)。结论:教育干预弥补了基线时发现的知识和咨询差距,提高了社区药师对眼科制剂的知识和咨询水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信