{"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}
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.
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.