评估主治医师和住院医师对固定剂量联合用药的认识、态度和实践:横断面评估。

Q2 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
Drugs in Context Pub Date : 2024-04-25 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.7573/dic.2024-2-1
Dhyuti Gupta, Prithpal Singh Matreja, Shilpa Patrick, Meenu Thomas, Pooja Agarwal, Preeti Singh
{"title":"评估主治医师和住院医师对固定剂量联合用药的认识、态度和实践:横断面评估。","authors":"Dhyuti Gupta, Prithpal Singh Matreja, Shilpa Patrick, Meenu Thomas, Pooja Agarwal, Preeti Singh","doi":"10.7573/dic.2024-2-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) were brought into the market with the intent of providing benefits primarily to patients and physicians. Nevertheless, despite their multiple advantages, they have their own set of drawbacks, especially regarding irrational FDCs. If physicians continue to prescribe them, prohibiting their sale would become all the more challenging. This cross-sectional survey study was planned to comprehend the level of knowledge, attitude and practice of physicians regarding such FDCs at a tertiary care teaching institute of western Uttar Pradesh, India.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>A pre-validated questionnaire was communicated electronically to all the attending physicians. For data analysis, descriptive statistics were applied and a χ<sup>2</sup> test was performed for inter-group comparison.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Amongst the 108 respondents, participation was almost comparable from both medical and surgical branches, with most participants being junior residents (58%). Even with sound knowledge of FDCs, only 46.30% of them were aware of banned FDCs. Similarly, only 6.48% could correctly identify the disadvantages associated with the use of FDCs, and 33.18% could correctly recognize irrational FDCs. This finding was consistently reflected in their attitude and practice and only 15.74% of respondents cross-referenced FDCs with the available literature. Furthermore, despite 88.89% of respondents checking for rationality of FDCs before prescribing them, a compendium of irrational FDCs is routinely prescribed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>To amend these shortcomings in prescribing of irrational FDCs, some recommendations are proposed by the authors herein.</p>","PeriodicalId":11362,"journal":{"name":"Drugs in Context","volume":"13 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11065134/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of knowledge, attitude and practice of fixed-dose combinations amongst attending physicians and residents: a cross-sectional evaluation.\",\"authors\":\"Dhyuti Gupta, Prithpal Singh Matreja, Shilpa Patrick, Meenu Thomas, Pooja Agarwal, Preeti Singh\",\"doi\":\"10.7573/dic.2024-2-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) were brought into the market with the intent of providing benefits primarily to patients and physicians. Nevertheless, despite their multiple advantages, they have their own set of drawbacks, especially regarding irrational FDCs. If physicians continue to prescribe them, prohibiting their sale would become all the more challenging. This cross-sectional survey study was planned to comprehend the level of knowledge, attitude and practice of physicians regarding such FDCs at a tertiary care teaching institute of western Uttar Pradesh, India.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>A pre-validated questionnaire was communicated electronically to all the attending physicians. For data analysis, descriptive statistics were applied and a χ<sup>2</sup> test was performed for inter-group comparison.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Amongst the 108 respondents, participation was almost comparable from both medical and surgical branches, with most participants being junior residents (58%). Even with sound knowledge of FDCs, only 46.30% of them were aware of banned FDCs. Similarly, only 6.48% could correctly identify the disadvantages associated with the use of FDCs, and 33.18% could correctly recognize irrational FDCs. This finding was consistently reflected in their attitude and practice and only 15.74% of respondents cross-referenced FDCs with the available literature. Furthermore, despite 88.89% of respondents checking for rationality of FDCs before prescribing them, a compendium of irrational FDCs is routinely prescribed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>To amend these shortcomings in prescribing of irrational FDCs, some recommendations are proposed by the authors herein.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11362,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Drugs in Context\",\"volume\":\"13 \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11065134/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Drugs in Context\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7573/dic.2024-2-1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drugs in Context","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7573/dic.2024-2-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:固定剂量复合制剂(FDC)进入市场的初衷主要是为患者和医生带来益处。然而,尽管固定剂量复方制剂具有多种优点,但也有其自身的一系列缺点,尤其是不合理的固定剂量复方制剂。如果医生继续开具此类处方,禁止其销售将变得更具挑战性。本横断面调查研究旨在了解印度北方邦西部一所三级医疗教学机构的医生对此类 FDCs 的认识水平、态度和做法:方法:通过电子方式向所有主治医生发送了一份经过预先验证的调查问卷。数据分析采用描述性统计,组间比较采用 χ2 检验:在 108 名受访者中,来自内科和外科的参与率几乎相当,大多数参与者为初级住院医师(58%)。即使对 FDCs 有充分了解,也只有 46.30% 的人知道禁用的 FDCs。同样,只有 6.48% 的人能够正确识别与使用 FDC 相关的弊端,33.18% 的人能够正确识别不合理的 FDC。这一结果持续反映在他们的态度和实践中,只有 15.74%的受访者能将 FDC 与现有文献进行对照。此外,尽管 88.89% 的受访者在开处方前会检查 FDC 的合理性,但不合理 FDC 简编仍是常规处方:为了弥补不合理处方 FDCs 的不足,作者在此提出了一些建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessment of knowledge, attitude and practice of fixed-dose combinations amongst attending physicians and residents: a cross-sectional evaluation.

Background: Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) were brought into the market with the intent of providing benefits primarily to patients and physicians. Nevertheless, despite their multiple advantages, they have their own set of drawbacks, especially regarding irrational FDCs. If physicians continue to prescribe them, prohibiting their sale would become all the more challenging. This cross-sectional survey study was planned to comprehend the level of knowledge, attitude and practice of physicians regarding such FDCs at a tertiary care teaching institute of western Uttar Pradesh, India.

Methodology: A pre-validated questionnaire was communicated electronically to all the attending physicians. For data analysis, descriptive statistics were applied and a χ2 test was performed for inter-group comparison.

Results: Amongst the 108 respondents, participation was almost comparable from both medical and surgical branches, with most participants being junior residents (58%). Even with sound knowledge of FDCs, only 46.30% of them were aware of banned FDCs. Similarly, only 6.48% could correctly identify the disadvantages associated with the use of FDCs, and 33.18% could correctly recognize irrational FDCs. This finding was consistently reflected in their attitude and practice and only 15.74% of respondents cross-referenced FDCs with the available literature. Furthermore, despite 88.89% of respondents checking for rationality of FDCs before prescribing them, a compendium of irrational FDCs is routinely prescribed.

Conclusion: To amend these shortcomings in prescribing of irrational FDCs, some recommendations are proposed by the authors herein.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Drugs in Context
Drugs in Context Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
63
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: Covers all phases of original research: laboratory, animal and human/clinical studies, health economics and outcomes research, and postmarketing studies. Original research that shows positive or negative results are welcomed. Invited review articles may cover single-drug reviews, drug class reviews, latest advances in drug therapy, therapeutic-area reviews, place-in-therapy reviews, new pathways and classes of drugs. In addition, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are welcomed and may be published as original research if performed per accepted guidelines. Editorials of key topics and issues in drugs and therapeutics are welcomed. The Editor-in-Chief will also consider manuscripts of interest in areas such as technologies that support diagnosis, assessment and treatment. EQUATOR Network reporting guidelines should be followed for each article type. GPP3 Guidelines should be followed for any industry-sponsored manuscripts. Other Editorial sections may include Editorial, Case Report, Conference Report, Letter-to-the-Editor, Educational Section.
×
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