| Literature DB >> 29325555 |
Ali Jasem Buabbas1, Fatemah Mohammad Alsaleh2, Hamza Mohamad Al-Shawaf3, Ali Abdullah4, Abdullah Almajran2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The evolving role of pharmacists in providing pharmaceutical care, as part of the healthcare team, challenges them to acquire up-to-date knowledge of medicines to make the best clinical decisions. The volume of medical literature is on the increase, and it is important to utilise these resources to optimise patients' therapeutic outcomes. This study aimed at assessing the readiness of government hospital pharmacists in practising evidence-based medicine (EBM) in Kuwait in regards to their attitude, knowledge and skills, as well as the perceived barriers and facilitators.Entities:
Keywords: Evidence-based medicine; Hospital pharmacists; Pharmacy practice; Readiness
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29325555 PMCID: PMC5765677 DOI: 10.1186/s12911-018-0585-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak ISSN: 1472-6947 Impact factor: 2.796
Socio-demographic factors and their associations with computer literacy
| Computer literacy | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Socio-demographic Factors | All (N = 176) | Basic or less (N = 43) | Good (N = 93) | Excellent (N = 40) | Chi-Square | |
| n | (Total %) | n (Row %) | n (Row %) | n (Row %) | ||
| Age group (years) | 0.032 | |||||
| 22–30 | 69 | (39.4) | 13 (18.8) | 35 (50.7) | 21 (30.4) | For trend |
| 31–40 | 69 | (41.2) | 20 (27.8) | 36 (50.0) | 16 (22.2) | |
| Above 40 | 34 | (19.4) | 9 (26.5) | 22 (64.7) | 3 (8.8) | |
| Gender | 0.867 | |||||
| Male | 79 | (45.1) | 18 (22.8) | 42 (53.2) | 19 (24.0) | Pearson |
| Female | 96 | (54.9) | 25 (26.0) | 50 (52.1) | 21 (21.9) | |
| Nationality | 0.817 | |||||
| Kuwaiti | 79 | (44.9) | 21 (26.6) | 40 (50.6) | 18 (22.8) | Pearson |
| Non-Kuwaiti | 97 | (55.1) | 22 (22.7) | 53 (54.6) | 22 (22.7) | |
| Educational level | 0.295 | |||||
| BSc | 135 | (78.5) | 28 (20.7) | 79 (58.6) | 28 (20.7) | For trend |
| Pharm D | 15 | (8.7) | 7 (46.7) | 6 (40.0) | 2 (13.3) | |
| Postgraduate | 22 | (12.8) | 4 (18.2) | 8 (36.3) | 10 (45.5) | |
| Years of experience | 0.364 | |||||
| 1–5 | 79 | (45.1) | 20 (25.3) | 38 (48.1) | 21 (26.6) | For trend |
| 6–15 | 70 | (40.0) | 16 (22.9) | 38 (54.2) | 16 (22.9) | |
| Above 15 | 26 | (14.9) | 7 (26.9) | 16 (61.5) | 3 (11.6) | |
| Rank of employment | 0.476 | |||||
| Beginner pharmacist | 32 | (18.3) | 7 (21.9) | 14 (43.8) | 11 (34.3) | For trend |
| Pharmacist | 70 | (40.0) | 19 (27.1) | 37 (52.9) | 14 (20.0) | |
| Pharmacy specialist | 26 | (14.9) | 7 (26.9) | 13 (50.0) | 6 (23.1) | |
| Senior pharmacist | 24 | (13.7) | 5 (20.8) | 12 (50.0) | 7 (29.2) | |
| Senior pharmacy specialist | 9 | (5.1) | 1 (11.1) | 8 (88.9) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Head of pharmacy specialists | 14 | (8.0) | 4 (28.6) | 8 (57.1) | 2 (14.3) | |
| Previous exposure to EBM | 0.025 | |||||
| Read about it | 82 | (48.0) | 25 (30.5) | 43 (52.4) | 14 (17.1) | Pearson |
| Attended a lecture | 32 | (18.7) | 5 (15.6) | 16 (50.0) | 11 (34.4) | |
| Had formal EBM training | 18 | (10.5) | 2 (11.1) | 7 (38.9) | 9 (50.0) | |
| Never heard of it | 39 | (22.8) | 9 (23.1) | 24 (61.5) | 6 (15.4) | |
| Previous research exposure | 0.105 | |||||
| Participated in one study | 48 | (28.1) | 9 (18.8) | 31 (64.6) | 8 (16.6) | Pearson |
| Have participated in more than one study | 20 | (11.7) | 6 (30.0) | 6 (30.0) | 8 (40.0) | |
| None | 103 | (60.2) | 27 (26.2) | 52 (50.5) | 24 (23.3) | |
Percentage of pharmacists’ knowledge about EBM terms
| EBM Knowledge Term | Do not understand and not willing to learn | Do not understand but would like to learn | Some understanding | Understand and could explain to others |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relative risk | 4 (2.3%) | 29 (16.8%) | 82 (47.4%) | 58 (33.5%) |
| Absolute risk | 5 (2.9%) | 32 (18.5%) | 62 (35.8%) | 74 (42.8%) |
| Systematic review | 5 (2.9%) | 55 (32.0%) | 68 (39.5%) | 44 (25.6%) |
| Odds ratio | 6 (3.5%) | 80 (46.5%) | 59 (34.3%) | 27 (15.7%) |
| Meta-analysis | 8 (4.7%) | 76 (44.7%) | 54 (31.8%) | 32 (18.8%) |
| Clinical effectiveness | 4 (2.3%) | 25 (14.5%) | 74 (42.8%) | 70 (40.4%) |
| Sample size calculation | 3 (1.7%) | 43 (24.9%) | 76 (43.9%) | 51 (29.5%) |
| Confidence interval | 3 (1.8%) | 69 (42.1%) | 61 (37.2%) | 31 (18.9%) |
| 7 (4.1%) | 73 (42.9%) | 54 (31.8%) | 36 (21.2%) | |
| Heterogeneity | 9 (5.3%) | 69 (40.6%) | 56 (32.9%) | 36 (21.2%) |
| Publication bias | 7 (4.2%) | 68 (40.5%) | 48 (28.6%) | 45 (26.7%) |
| Sensitivity | 4 (2.3%) | 48 (28.1%) | 58 (33.9%) | 61 (35.7%) |
All of the socio-demographic variables were not significantly associated with EBM knowledge scores (p ≥ 0.05), except for the item “previous exposure to EBM” (p = 0.001).
Fig. 1The pharmacists’ self-reported confidence skills required for practising EBM
Fig. 2The Pharmacists’ use of varied resources
Fig. 3Attitudes and opinions of pharmacists towards EBM use in pharmacy practice
Fig. 4The Pharmacists’ barriers to incorporate EBM in pharmacy practice
Fig. 5The most Facilitators for implementing EBM in pharmacy practice