An exploratory study of outpatient medication knowledge and satisfaction with medication counselling at selected hospital pharmacies in Northwestern Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: Medication counselling is an important activity that improves patient therapeutic outcomes. After this activity has been carried out, patients should be satisfied with counselling, and possess adequate knowledge about their medications.
OBJECTIVES: To describe outpatient/caregiver medication knowledge and satisfaction with medication counselling at the main outpatient pharmacies of eight public secondary and tertiary hospitals located in two states in Northwestern Nigeria.
METHODS: Exit interviews were conducted from December 2019 to March 2020 with randomly sampled patients/caregivers who had just been dispensed one or more prescription medications from the main pharmacies of the hospitals. The questionnaire used contained 31 questions in three sections. The first section collected demographic information. The second section assessed respondents' experiences and overall satisfaction with the counselling they had received. The last section evaluated respondents' knowledge of one randomly selected prescription medication that had been dispensed to them. Data collected were coded and analyzed to generate descriptive statistics. To explore associations between respondent characteristics and overall satisfaction, non-parametric tests were used, and statistical significance set at p<0.05.
RESULTS: A total of 684 patients/caregivers were interviewed. Majority of respondents agreed that the time spent (97.1%) and quantity of information (99.1%) provided during counselling was adequate. However, over 60% of them also agreed that dispensers did not assess their understanding of information provided or invite them to ask questions. Despite this, their average overall satisfaction with counselling on a 10-point scale was 8.6 ± 1.6. Over 90% of them also correctly identified the routes and frequency of administration of the prescribed medication selected for the knowledge assessment. Although, more than 60% of respondents did not know the duration of therapy or names of these medications.
CONCLUSION: Respondents' satisfaction with medication counselling was fairly high even though they did not seem to know much about their medication.

Introduction

Medication counselling is the provision of verbal or written information about medicines to individual patients or their caregivers. It is a routine, but very important activity usually carried out by pharmacists or related personnel in healthcare settings including hospital pharmacies.

Medication counselling has several benefits for patients. Since proper counselling enhances patient medication knowledge [1, 2], it can also prevent the occurrence of adverse drug events [3], improve patient medication adherence [4, 5], increase patient satisfaction with care [6, 7], and improve patient beliefs about their medicines [8]- all of which culminate in better therapeutic outcomes for patients. Studies have also reported that when patients are satisfied with the medication counselling they have received, they are more likely to adhere and use their medications correctly [9, 10].

After medication counselling has been completed, patients ideally should be satisfied with the counselling they have received, and also possess adequate knowledge about their medications. However, several studies from all around the world that have assessed outpatient medication knowledge following medication counselling, have generally reported that their respondents had poor knowledge about at least one aspect of their medication [7, 11–17]. Similarly, the few studies [7, 18] that have evaluated satisfaction with medication counselling have also reported varying levels of patient satisfaction.

Nigeria like several other low-middle income countries, has a sub-optimal healthcare system [19]. Primary healthcare centers within the country are mostly non-functional, in addition to suffering from other issues including poor availability of qualified staff, essential medical supplies and medicines [20]. As a result of this, many individuals living in the country bypass primary health facilities and move to secondary or tertiary hospitals for all their healthcare needs [21]. Thus, most public secondary and tertiary hospitals within the country have specially designated units called “outpatient or family medicine” departments that handle routine medical complaints from members of the public [21]. These hospitals also have one or more pharmacies located inside them that dispense prescriptions generated from these outpatient departments/clinics. These hospital pharmacies are usually manned by trained pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, all of whom are expected to counsel patients after filling their prescriptions. Although, it should however be noted that there are no explicit guidelines, policies, incentives or standards for medication counselling within the country.

Little is known about outpatient medication knowledge and satisfaction with medication counselling within the Nigerian setting [22, 23], thus the need for further research on these topics. Furthermore, because medication knowledge and satisfaction with counselling are linked to the optimal use of medication by patients, assessing these variables are important steps in evaluating the quality of services provided and identifying areas for improvement. Thus, the aim of this study was to describe outpatient/caregiver medication knowledge and satisfaction with medication counselling provided at outpatient pharmacies of selected hospitals located in North-Western Nigeria.

Methods

Study sites, design and population

Exit interviews were conducted from December 2019 to March 2020 on patients/caregivers who had just been dispensed one or more prescribed medication from the major outpatient pharmacies of eight public secondary and tertiary hospitals located in two states (Kaduna and Kano) in Northwestern Nigeria. The tertiary hospitals included Ahmadu Bello University Teaching Hospital Zaria, Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital Kano, Barau Dikko Teaching Hospital Kaduna, and Mohammed Abdullahi Wase Teaching Hospital Kano. The secondary hospitals included Yusuf Dantsoho Memorial Hospital Kaduna, Gwamna Awan General Hospital Kaduna, Murtala Mohammed Specialist Hospital, Kano and Hasiya Bayero Pediatric Hospital Kano. To be included in the study, respondents had to consent to participate, be outpatients, be aged at least 16 years, and understand either English or Hausa (English is the official language of Nigeria, while Hausa is the predominant ethnic language spoken in Northern Nigeria).

Sample size determination and sampling technique

Despite being called ‘outpatient’ pharmacies, all the selected pharmacies also attended to hospital inpatient prescriptions, and all prescriptions were recorded in the same record books. This ensured that it was impossible to differentiate between previous inpatient and outpatient prescription records for the purposes of sample size calculation. Thus, it was not possible to accurately calculate sample sizes for only outpatient visits-which were the focus of this study.

Consequently, non-proportional quota sampling was used to ensure the same level of representation and a quota of 100 exit interviews was allocated to each pharmacy (yielding an estimated total sample size of 800). Respondents were randomly sampled for these interviews.

Data collection instrument

A questionnaire was designed for the study. It contained 31 questions distributed into three sections. The first section contained 12 questions that collected information about demographic and other characteristics of respondents including gender, age, number of drugs prescribed etc.

The second section contained 11 questions, some of which were adapted from other studies [24-26]. Ten of these questions assessed respondents’ experiences during the medication counselling process and were answered using the five point Likert scale. The last question in this section assessed respondents’ overall satisfaction with the counselling they had received, and this was answered using a global 10-point rating scale. The items in this section were sent to 11 purposively sampled Clinical Pharmacy experts to ascertain their content validity. The calculated average content validity index (Av-CVI) score of the items was 0.96, and no item scored below 0.82, which is considered appropriate [27]. These questions were then pretested on a sample of 103 outpatients at a separate secondary hospital (not one of the study sites). After the pilot test, the internal reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) was calculated and found to be 0.7, which is also considered acceptable [28]. Thus, no adjustments were carried out.

The last section of the questionnaire contained eight questions that aimed to assess respondents’ knowledge of prescribed medication that had been dispensed to them. These open-ended questions were adapted from those used in earlier studies by Okuyan et al., [4] and Hirko et al. [16].

Data collection

Data was collected in each hospital over the course of one week (Monday-Friday) from 9 am to 2pm daily. Three young pharmacists with 1–2 years’ work experience served as the research assistants who collected the data. They were trained prior to data collection over a three-day period by the principal investigator, who also sat through the first 20 interviews conducted by each of these assistants. Patients/ caregivers were randomly approached by these assistants and asked whether they were outpatients who had just collected prescribed medication from the pharmacy. If they answered “yes”, they were then invited to participate-after the study objective had been briefly explained to them. If they were willing to participate, they were invited to sit down, and the questionnaire (in their preferred language) used to interview them. For the knowledge assessment questions, the patient was asked to randomly select one medicine from the bag containing their prescribed medication and hold the selected drug all through the duration of questioning. The generic name of the medication, its duration of use and frequency of administration were then noted down on the questionnaire by the data collector, after which respondents’ medication knowledge was assessed. Their answers were written down verbatim. The exit interview sessions mostly lasted between 6–15 minutes.

Data analysis

Data collected were coded and entered into the IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22 software and analyzed to generate descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages). For the responses to the questions in section two that were answered using a five-point Likert scale, respondents who “strongly agreed” and “agreed” were grouped and reported together and the same was done for respondents who “strongly disagreed” and “disagreed”.

Medications used to assess respondents’ medication knowledge were categorized into groups based on the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Center for Drug Statistics Methodology in Norway [29].

Respondents’ answers to the open-ended medication knowledge questions were assessed using a conference format after data collection had been completed by four pharmacists (2 academic and 2 hospital pharmacists) with previous experience in similar studies. Before a respondents’ answer could be classified as correct or wrong, 3 out of 4 of the assessors had to agree or disagree. Answers to the questions on duration and frequency of administration were assessed by cross-checking with the information contained on their prescriptions that had been earlier copied out by the data collectors. Where this was not available and for all other questions including medication indication and additional information relevant to the drug, the researchers used their prior knowledge of pharmacology and pharmacotherapeutics (and cross-checked with various reference sources where necessary) to assess respondent knowledge. Finally, for the question on what to do if a dose was missed, respondent answers were grouped into two themes to simplify reporting.

To calculate overall medication knowledge, correct responses to the medication knowledge assessment questions were scored one mark each, while wrong and “I don’t know” responses were scored zero. For selected medicines (e.g., stat dose medications) where respondents did not require certain information, those components were also scored 1 mark. All these responses were then totaled to produce a score /8 for each participant. Respondents who scored 5 or more were classified as having good knowledge, while those who scored 4 or less were classed as having poor knowledge.

To explore associations between respondent characteristics and their overall satisfaction, non-parametric tests (Mann Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis) were used, and statistical significance set at p<0.05. In the cases where statistical significance differences in overall satisfaction scores between groups was observed, Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc tests were also carried out to identify the specific subgroups involved.

Ethics approval

Ethical clearance for the study was obtained from the ethical review committees of Kaduna State Ministry of Health and Human Services (MOH/ADM/744/VOL.1/723), Kano State Ministry of Health (MOH/Off/797/T.I./1807), Ahmadu Bello University Teaching Hospital (ABUTHZ/HREC/G30/2019), Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital (NHREC/28/01/2020/AKTH/EC/2808), Barau Dikko Teaching Hospital (19-0004-11) and from Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria (ABUCUHSR/2020/017). Verbal consent from respondents was considered to be informed consent, and each participant was asked to provide consent before the interviews were conducted

Results

A total of 684 patients/caregivers were interviewed, producing an 85.5% total response rate. The sample size quota (100 patients) for all four hospitals located in Kano state was achieved, while 57, 69, 76 and 82 patients were interviewed from the four hospitals located in Kaduna state.

Demographic and other characteristics of respondents

Demographic and other characteristics of these individuals are reported below in Table 1. The ages of study participants ranged from 16–78 years (average = 35.3 years), and over half of them were females (Table 1).

Table 1

Demographic and other characteristics of exit interview respondents (n = 684).

Characteristic	Variables	n (%)
Gender	Female	445 (65.1)
	Male	239 (34.9)
*Highest educational level completed	No formal education	127 (18.7)
	Primary school	47 (6.9)
	Secondary school	251 (36.9)
	Two years of tertiary education	119 (17.5)
	Four or more years of tertiary education	137 (20.2)
*Monthly income	NGN 18,000 or less	43 (14.5)
	NGN 18,001–50,000	170 (57.2)
	NGN 50,001–100,000	58 (19.5)
	Above NGN 100,000	26 (8.8)
Owner of prescription	Self	397 (58)
	Other	287 (42)
Nature of area where counselling was provided	Privatea	74 (10.8)
	Semi-privateb	410 (60)
	Windowc	200 (29.2)

NGN-Nigerian Naira. 1 US Dollar = 360 NGN at the time of data collection *Values in these rows sum up to less than the total because of missing values.

aPrivate = Counselling area is secluded and has a door that can be shut, both dispensers and patients can sit comfortably.

bSemi-private = Patient can come into the pharmacy and may sit down, however the area is not secluded and conversations can be overheard.

cWindow = Patients cannot enter the pharmacy, and dispensers communicate with patients through a window.

Respondents’ experiences during medication dispensing & counselling

Majority of study respondents agreed that the time spent and quantity of information provided during counselling was adequate (Table 2). Most of them also agreed that dispensers were friendly and used language(s) or terms that they could understand during counselling. On the other hand, over 60% of respondents agreed with the statements that dispensers did not assess their understanding of the information they provided or invite them to ask questions.

Table 2

Respondents experiences during medication counselling (n = 683).

Item	Agreed n (%)	Neutral n (%)	Disagreed n (%)
Waiting time in the pharmacy was too long	88 (12.9)	58 (8.5)	537 (78.6)
* Time spent by the dispenser during counselling was adequate	662 (97.1)	11 (1.6)	9 (1.3)
* Place where counselling took place was comfortable	650 (95.7)	13 (1.9)	16 (2.4)
Friendliness of the dispenser was poor	17 (2.5)	14 (2.1)	648 (95.4)
* Privacy of counselling area was adequate	524 (77)	69 (10.1)	88 (12.9)
* Unfamiliar medical terms were used during counselling	12 (1.8)	8 (1.2)	662 (97)
Language used by the dispenser was understandable	662 (96.9)	1 (0.2)	20 (2.9)
Dispenser did not assess respondents’ understanding of the information provided	459 (67.2)	26 (3.8)	198 (29)
* Dispenser invited respondent to ask questions during counselling	221 (32.4)	21 (3.1)	439 (64.5)
Quantity of information about respondents’ medicines provided by the dispenser was adequate	677 (99.1)	4 (0.6)	2 (0.3)

*Values in these rows sum up to less than the total because of missing values.

Respondents’ overall satisfaction with medication counselling

When respondents were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with medication counselling on a scale of one to ten, only 27 respondents (4%) provided ratings of 5 or lower. The average overall satisfaction score was 8.6 ± 1.6, and a marked ceiling effect was observed as 282 respondents (41.5%) rated their satisfaction as 10/10.

Associations between respondent characteristics and overall satisfaction with medication counselling

Associations between respondent characteristics and overall satisfaction with medication counselling scores are shown below in Table 3. Overall satisfaction scores were significantly higher in female respondents when compared to those of male respondents (p = 0.001). Satisfaction scores also decreased as the educational level and income of respondents increased. The Dunn-Bonferoni post hoc test revealed that there were statistically significant differences in the overall satisfaction scores between respondents with no formal education and those with either 2 or 4 years of post-secondary education (p < 0.001 in both cases). Similarly, there was also a statistically significant difference between the scores of respondents that had completed secondary education and those who had completed four or more years of post-secondary education (p = 0.003).

Table 3

Associations between respondent characteristics and overall satisfaction with medication counselling scores.

Characteristic	Variables	Mean rank	p value
Gender	Female	356.8	0.001*a
	Male	308.8
Highest educational level completed	No formal education	408.4	< 0.001*b
	Primary school	337.1
	Secondary school	353.4
	2 years of tertiary education	298.7
	4 or more years of tertiary education	280.8
Monthly income	NGN 18,000 or less	193.5	<0.001*b
	NGN 18,001–50,000	147.2
	NGN 50,001–100,000	132.1
	Above NGN 100,000	101.0
Nature of area where counselling was provided	Private	332.1	< 0.001*b
	Semi-private	213.9
	Window	402.0

NGN-Nigerian Naira, 1 US Dollar = 360 NGN at the time of data collection

*Significant at p< 0.05.

a-Mann-Whitney U test

b-Kruskall Wallis H test.

In the same vein, as respondents’ income increased, their overall satisfaction with medication counselling also decreased. There were statistically significant differences in the satisfaction with medication counselling ratings of respondents earning 18,000 NGN or less monthly and those earning more. Furthermore, there was also a statistically significant difference in the satisfaction scores of those earning between 18,000–50,000 NGN and those earning over 100,000 NGN monthly (p = 0.042).

Respondents’ medication knowledge

Respondents’ responses to the questions asked to assess their knowledge of the selected medications is reported below in Table 4. Over 90% of them correctly identified the routes, dose and dosing frequency of the selected medication (Table 4). Less than half of them knew the correct indication (48.3%) and daily timing (47.1%) for these medications. Over 60% of them also did not know the duration of therapy, name or any other additional information about these medications (Table 4). Furthermore, only 261 respondents (38.2%) had good medication knowledge, as defined by an overall total medication knowledge score of 5 or higher.

Table 4

Responses to the questions assessing respondents medication knowledge (n = 684).

	Participants’ Response	n (%)
Name of medication	Correctly provided the medications’ generic name	74 (10.8)
	Correctly provided a brand name for the medication	103 (15.1)
	Provided a wrong generic/brand name	3 (0.4)
	Did not know	504 (73.7)
Indication for the medication	Provided a correct answer	330 (48.3)
	Provided a wrong answer	58 (8.5)
	Did not know	296 (43.3)
Route of administering the medication	Provided the correct answer	683 (99.9)
	Provided the wrong answer	1 (0.1)
Dose and frequency of administration of the medication	Provided the correct answer	641 (93.7)
	Provided a wrong answer	38 (5.6)
	Did not know	5 (0.7)
Duration of use for the medication	Provided the correct answer	214 (31.3)
	Provided a wrong answer	18 (2.6)
	Did not know	433 (63.3)
	Not required a	19 (2.8)
Daily timing of use for the medication	Provided the correct answer	322 (47.1)
	Provided a wrong answer	42 (6.1)
	Did not know	301 (44)
	Not required a	19 (2.8)
* What to do if a dose of the medication was missed	Respondents said they would not combine two doses at once	264 (38.7)
	Respondent said they would take as soon as they remembered	23 (3.3)
	Did not know	375 (54.9)
	Not required b	21 (3.1)
Any other additional information provided about the medication	Provided a correct answer	54 (7.9)
	Provided a wrong answer	2 (0.3)
	Did not know	591 (86.4)
	Not required c	37 (5.4)

*Values in this row sum up to less than the total because of missing values.

a This answer was not required for single use or stat doses of some drugs e.g. Albendazole, Fluconazole and Azithromycin.

b This answer was not required for single use or stat doses of some drugs and dermatological preparations.

c This answer was not required for single use or stat doses of some drugs and selected vitamin preparations including Vitamins B complex and C.

Respondents’ medication knowledge by ATC category

Respondents’ knowledge of the four most common ATC classes of medication assessed are shown below in Table 5.

Table 5

Percentage of respondents with correct responses to questions assessing their medication knowledge of drugs in selected ATC categories.

Subgroup	Namea	Indicationb	Durationc	Daily timingc	What to do if a dose was missedd	Additional informationc
Drugs acting on the cardiovascular system ATC Category C (n = 77)	15.6%	77.6%	16.9%	57.1%	35.1%	9.1%
Systemic anti-infective drugs ATC Category J (n = 222)	23%	20.3%	34.7%	26.6%	46.1%	14.9%
Drugs acting on the musculoskeletal system ATC Category M (n = 42)	14.3%	50%	35.7%	64.3%	42.9%	4.8%
Anti-parasitic Products ATC Category P (n = 74)	20.3%	73%	70.3%	40.5%	40.5%	6.8%

aCorrect for name = Respondent provided a correct brand or generic name.

bCorrect for indication = Respondent provided a correct possible indication for use of the drug.

cCorrect for duration, daily timing and additional information = Respondent provided the correct answer or that information was not required for the medication.

dCorrect for what to do if dose was missed = Respondent knew they were not supposed to double medication dose or they said they would take as soon as they remembered.

The 77 medications examined from the ATC category C class included diuretics, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers or fixed dose combinations of these agents. Over half of these respondents knew the correct daily timing (57.1%) and indications (77.6%) for these agents (Table 5).

The 222 medications examined from the ATC category J class included various types of antibiotics from different classes, fixed dose combinations of antibiotics and systemic antifungal drugs. Less than half of these respondents knew the correct duration of drug therapy (34.7%), daily timing (26.6%) and indication for use (20.3%) for these agents (Table 5).

Most of the 42 medications examined from the ATC category M class contained non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) either singly or in combination with other agents. Half or more these respondents knew the correct daily dose timings (64.3%) and indication (50%) for these drugs (Table 5).

The 74 medications examined from the ATC category P class included various types of antimalarials including Artemisinin Combination Therapy (ACT) drugs, Sulphadoxine/Pyrimethamine, and other antiparasitic drugs like albendazole (Table 5). Over half of these respondents knew the correct duration of drug therapy (70.3%), and drug indication (73%).

Discussion

This study described patient/caregiver medication knowledge and satisfaction with medication counselling. Study findings showed that the average overall satisfaction with medication counselling score was 8.6 on a 10-point scale. Majority of the patients’ or caregivers interviewed agreed that the time spent and quantity of information provided during counselling were adequate, and that pharmacy waiting times were not too long. Over half of them also agreed that dispensers did not assess their understanding of the information provided or invite them to ask questions during counselling. Most of them correctly identified the routes and frequency of administration of the medicines they had selected for the knowledge assessment, although more than 60% of them had no knowledge of the duration of therapy, name or any other additional information about these medications.

With respect to the experiences of this study’s respondents’ during medication counselling, majority of them agreed that the time spent and quantity of information provided during counselling was adequate, and that pharmacy waiting times were not too long. Many of them also agreed that dispensers were friendly, used language(s) or terms during counselling that they could understand and that counselling areas were comfortable and offered adequate privacy. Other hospital-based studies that have assessed patient satisfaction with these aspects of pharmacy care have largely also reported similar findings [10, 30–34], although a few of them reported patient dissatisfaction especially with comfort [31, 33], and privacy of dispensing areas [10].

In this study, the average overall satisfaction with medication counselling score was 8.6 on a 10-point scale. This could be an actual representation of the true satisfaction levels of the respondents surveyed, since there is evidence showing that several of the items they were satisfied with e.g. waiting time, content of and time spent during medication counselling as well as pharmacist attitude are all positively linked to overall patient satisfaction [9, 32]. In addition, another study that used a 10-point scale to assess overall satisfaction in hospital outpatients also reported a similarly high, although slightly lower average rating of 7.8 [32]. However, this result should also be interpreted with caution, especially due to the marked ceiling effect observed with the responses. The ceiling effect is often observed when the instrument used is not sensitive enough to discriminate between satisfaction levels amongst respondents [35].

Several respondent characteristics including gender, educational level and income were found to be associated with overall satisfaction in this study. The effect of gender on patient satisfaction is still uncertain, because while some studies have reported that female sex is generally associated with higher satisfaction levels [18, 24, 30], others have reported higher satisfaction levels in males [9, 32, 36]. As was also seen in this study, satisfaction has been shown to decrease as educational level increases [9, 18, 24, 30, 31], so a similar effect would be expected with income and this has equally been observed in another study [24]. These findings could perhaps be explained by the fact that respondents who were wealthier/better educated likely had higher expectations for service quality, whereas those lower on the socio-economic scale may have had fewer (or lower) expectations for satisfaction. Finally, respondents in this study that were counselled through the window had significantly higher satisfaction scores than those counselled in private counselling rooms or semi-private areas. This is a particularly noteworthy finding, because it is widely believed that private counselling areas provide the best avenue for patient counselling, and there is even some evidence to support this [37]. Perhaps, this finding could be linked to the actual content of the counselling provided by dispensers in those cases, which may have been of better quality than that provided in the other settings.

With respect to medication knowledge, majority of respondents correctly knew the routes and frequency of administration of the selected medication. Similar results have also been reported from studies conducted in Ethiopia [13, 16], Saudi Arabia [38], the United States [11], Lebanon [14], Portugal [12] and Spain [39]. On the other hand, just a little under half of respondents knew the correct indication and daily timing for their medication. Some studies have reported that majority of patients know the indication(s) for their medicines [7, 11–13, 16, 39], although an Egyptian study reported that while respondents had poor knowledge about the indications of their medicines, they almost all knew the correct timing of doses [15].

Over 60% of our study’s respondents did not know the duration of therapy, name or any other additional information (including side effects) about the selected medication. Many studies agree that patients do not know much additional information about their medicines especially about things like side effects and other precautions [7, 11, 12, 17, 39]. It has also been established that patients often do not know what to do if they miss a dose of their medication [13, 16, 17].

As was also the case in this study, several studies have also reported important knowledge gaps in patients with regards to relevant information about various classes of medication including NSAIDs [40], artemisinin containing antimalarials [41], cardiovascular medication [42] and antibiotics [43].

Strengths of this study include the large numbers of respondents surveyed, and the fact that respondents were sampled from major public healthcare facilities (secondary and tertiary hospitals) found within the country. However, certain limitations should also be noted. Firstly, by assessing medication knowledge against our general knowledge of pharmacology, we may have inadvertently underestimated the knowledge of patients prescribed medications for off-label indications. Furthermore, the fact that the allocated numbers of patient interviews for all of the hospitals sampled from Kaduna state could not be reached might also have affected our findings. Although this limitation may be explained by the differences in population between the two states (Kano’s population of 13.4 million estimated inhabitants is almost twice as large as Kaduna’s estimated population of 7.7 million). As a consequence of the non-probability sampling method used, the data obtained was also treated as a single cohort, potentially obscuring any differences that might have existed between the sampled hospitals. And although the actual personnel involved in counselling (pharmacist or technician) may have affected some of our results, we were unable to control for this possible confounder. Finally, as is often the case with questionnaire based studies, social desirability bias (a tendency for research subjects to select responses they believe are more socially acceptable) cannot be totally ruled out.

Conclusion

Respondents’ experiences during medication counselling in this study were generally positive, and their satisfaction with medication counselling was high. However, they did not know much about their medication except for route and frequency of administration. These results seem to imply that many patients within the study setting do not have adequate information on how to take their medicines correctly, which could contribute to poor treatment outcomes, increasing treatment failure rates and rising antimicrobial resistance. Thus, efforts to improve medication counselling should focus on increasing patient medication knowledge However, because medication knowledge is dependent on several other factors including medication literacy, health professionals’ medication knowledge etc. Further research is recommended to better understand these findings and help identify effective interventions to improve medication knowledge.

11 Dec 2021

Who actually collected the data?  What was their training to perform data collection?

You treat all of the data as a single cohort.  Please comment on potential differences in results had you stratified by hospital.

Counseling may be performed by a pharmacist or a technician.  You do not make this distinction which may influence results.

Your use of a general score for satisfaction is problematic.  As noted, results tended to cluster around 10.  Is this due to actual satisfaction?  Or is it a function of patients not really knowing what to expect and just assigning a 10.  Without a better definition of what satisfaction consisted above, perhaps patients are rating primarily speed of service, cost of medication or some other confounder.

When did the 4 pharmacists meet in conference to discuss the correctness of patients' answers?  Was this concurrent with data collection or at another time?

Why were better educated/wealthier patients less likely to be satisfied?  I relate this to point 4 above - perhaps they had actual expectations for the quality of service, whereas those lower on the socio-economic scale may have had fewer (or at least different) expectations for satisfaction.

Please submit your revised manuscript by January 1, 2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

John Rovers, PharmD, MIPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please describe 1) whether verbal consent was informed consent, and 2) how verbal consent was documented and witnessed. If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians."

3. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed the survey or questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. If the questionnaire is published, please provide a citation to the (1) questionnaire and/or (2) original publication associated with the questionnaire.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: General comments:

The authors aim to evaluate exit-knowledge of dispensed medicines and counseling service satisfactions among outpatients served at selected hospital pharmacies in Northwestern Nigeria using a cross-sectional survey at exit from drug outlets. Clients’ knowledge of dispensed medicines and their satisfaction with pharmacy services can impact their manner of adherence to the received drugs. Understanding these aspects can help the pharmacy service providers to maintain their strong sides while also striving to improve their downsides related to medication counseling services. In these senses, this study has value, but it lacks clarity on how samples were determined and how the study participants (outpatients/caregivers) were selected from clients who contacted the main hospital pharmacy outlets considered. Other more detailed concerns and specific comments are highlighted as below:-

Title:

The title of this research didn't exactly reflect what had been measured by the authors. The authors conducted exit-interviews to assess about knowledge status of dispensed medications among outpatients/caregivers and their satisfaction with the counseling services they obtained from pharmacy professionals at eight main outpatient pharmacy units in Northwestern Nigeria. The experiences of the respondents during medication counseling service that authors assessed had helped them rate the counseling service satisfaction and it need not stand alone. Accordingly, exit-knowledge of dispensed medicines and satisfactions with medication counseling service among outpatients served at selected hospital pharmacies in Northwestern Nigeria can be specifically reflected.

Abstract:

Objective subsection of this section has an ambiguity. I think the study participants' medication experience during counseling that authors assessed was part of satisfaction with the pharmacy services that included medication counseling. Instead, they assessed medication knowledge of the participants at exit from 8 main hospital pharmacies in Northwestern Nigeria. And, this was intended to quickly test the effect of medication counseling on knowledge status of outpatients/caregivers specifically on the dispensed medicines. So, the experiences of outpatients during counseling that helped rate their satisfaction can be incorporated into the counseling service satisfaction. This needs correction across the manuscript.

Line 41, bold phrase need editorial correction.

Introduction:

Background information presented in lines 65-67 needs reference citation.

Methods:

Sample size determination and sampling technique....No probability sample was determined for this study and the authors didn't justify the reason why they dropped to do this. Again, although the authors considered non-proportional quota allocation of 100 outpatients/caregivers to each of the eight main hospital pharmacies studied in Northwestern Nigeria, they didn't explain their method of differentiation for outpatients from inpatients before enrolling them in the exit-interviews. Besides, they didn't clearly describe the method to enroll each of the outpatients (outpatients or caregivers) for the interview. Did all the outpatients/caregivers contacting the hospital pharmacies with prescriptions are interviewed about their medication knowledge, counseling status, and pharmacy service satisfaction? I wonder detail explanations on how the authors estimated 800 outpatients/caregivers and how were they selected each of the participant from among all contacts to hospital pharmacies.

Data analysis.....Authors need to explain their method on how they linked exit interviews of outpatients/caregivers with prescription reviews they did to obtain duration and frequency of use for the dispensed medicine in data collection section of the methods. Again, it is clear that non-parametric tests give crude hints of associations between exposure and outcome variables. However, it is not clear why did the authors employ non-parametric tests to assess associations between characteristics of respondents and their status of medication counseling satisfaction at exit from hospital pharmacies? I wonder how the authors could be sure on the association with this crude tests without further analytic tests.

Results:

The authors relate overall satisfaction of respondents with medication counseling service using mean score found by non-parametric tests, but it is not clear which category of the characteristics had the actual association with the satisfaction outcome. For example, the characteristics.... 'Highest educational level completed' ...has five categories and the association that the authors tested shows statistical significance, but for which category did this occur was not clear. So, I wonder why authors preferred this statistical test for associations between variables.

In table 4, authors present outpatients'/caregivers' knowledge of medicines they received from hospital pharmacies, but they didn't give summary measure of overall knowledge status for the variables considered. Better to include this in results section while also explaining ways how this summary measure was conducted in methods section of the manuscript. In the same table, responses look mismatched for name of medication categories. Please check this.

Discussion:

The first paragraph of the discussion shall indicate a brief overview of the key findings for the study that are to be interpreted one by one in next paragraphs. Instead, the authors restated their objective that needs correction. Again, ambiguity in this objective statement also needs correction to reflect what was exactly measured.

In discussion, I think the outpatients/caregivers participated in this exit-interview study rated their medication counseling satisfaction based on their experience about the service during the counseling. And, this experience of the respondents about their medication counseling need to be integrated into satisfaction with the medication counseling service. Moreover, the authors didn't explain details of why more educated respondents were less satisfied about the dispensed medication counseling service provided to them. By the same token, authors should well explain why a relatively reach respondents were less satisfied.

Conclusion:

Some aspect of this conclusion looks general whilst few other key findings were omitted from these key message statements.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

15 Jan 2022

Dear Editor and Reviewer.

Thank you so much for taking your time to review our paper and offer constructive input. Please find below our responses with reason(s) where relevant to the comments raised during the review. Thank you again.

Editors’ comment: Who actually collected the data? What was their training to perform data collection?

Action(s) taken, with reason(s) where relevant: Three young pharmacists with 1-2 years’ work experience served as the research assistants who collected the data. They were trained over a three-day period on exit interviewing by the principal investigator, who also sat through the first 20 interviews conducted by each of these assistants. This information has now been included in lines 149-152.

Editors’ comment: You treat all of the data as a single cohort. Please comment on potential differences in results had you stratified by hospital.

Action(s) taken, with reason(s) where relevant: Because of the non-probability sampling method used to allocate sample sizes, it was not possible to accurately compare findings between the hospitals sampled. This is a limitation of the study and has now been included in lines 381-383.

Editors’ comment: Counseling may be performed by a pharmacist or a technician. You do not make this distinction which may influence results.

Action(s) taken, with reason(s) where relevant: This is also true. This has now also been included as a study limitation (Lines 383-385).

Editors’ comment: Your use of a general score for satisfaction is problematic. As noted, results tended to cluster around 10. Is this due to actual satisfaction? Or is it a function of patients not really knowing what to expect and just assigning a 10. Without a better definition of what satisfaction consisted above, perhaps patients are rating primarily speed of service, cost of medication or some other confounder

Action(s) taken, with reason(s) where relevant: This is noted and has been discussed in lines 329 - 338.

Editors’ comment: When did the 4 pharmacists meet in conference to discuss the correctness of patients' answers? Was this concurrent with data collection or at another time?

Action(s) taken, with reason(s) where relevant: These meetings were conducted after data collection had been concluded. This information has now been included in line 174

Editors’ comment: Why were better educated/wealthier patients less likely to be satisfied? I relate this to point 4 above - perhaps they had actual expectations for the quality of service, whereas those lower on the socio-economic scale may have had fewer (or at least different) expectations for satisfaction.

Action(s) taken, with reason(s) where relevant: This is noted with thanks. This information has now been included in lines 345 – 348.

Editors’ comment: Please describe 1) whether verbal consent was informed consent, and 2) how verbal consent was documented and witnessed.

Action(s) taken, with reason(s) where relevant: Verbal consent was considered to be informed consent, and each participant was asked to provide consent before the interviews were conducted. This information has now been included in lines 196-198.

Editors’ comment: Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed the survey or questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information

Action(s) taken, with reason(s) where relevant: A copy of the questionnaire has now been uploaded as an appendix.

Reviewers’ comment (Title): The title of this research didn't exactly reflect what had been measured by the authors. The authors conducted exit-interviews to assess about knowledge status of dispensed medications among outpatients/caregivers and their satisfaction with the counseling services they obtained from pharmacy professionals at eight main outpatient pharmacy units in Northwestern Nigeria. The experiences of the respondents during medication counseling service that authors assessed had helped them rate the counseling service satisfaction and it need not stand alone. Accordingly, exit-knowledge of dispensed medicines and satisfactions with medication counseling service among outpatients served at selected hospital pharmacies in Northwestern Nigeria can be specifically reflected.

Action(s) taken, with reason(s) where relevant: This is noted. The papers’ title has been changed and now reads as “An Exploratory Study of Outpatient Medication Knowledge and Satisfaction with Medication Counselling at Selected Hospital Pharmacies in Northwestern Nigeria”

Reviewers’ comment (Abstract): I think the study participants' medication experience during counseling that authors assessed was part of satisfaction with the pharmacy services that included medication counseling. So, the experiences of outpatients during counseling that helped rate their satisfaction can be incorporated into the counseling service satisfaction. This needs correction across the manuscript.

Action(s) taken, with reason(s) where relevant: This is also noted and the correction has been effected across the manuscript.

Reviewers’ comment (Introduction): Background information presented in lines 65-67 needs reference citation.

Action(s) taken, with reason(s) where relevant: This has now been included (line 89).

Reviewers’ comment (Methods):

i. Nonprobability sampling was determined for this study and the authors didn't justify the reason why they dropped to do this. I wonder detail explanations on how the authors estimated 800 outpatients/caregivers and how were they selected each of the participant from among all contacts to hospital pharmacies.

ii. Again, although the authors considered non-proportional quota allocation of 100 outpatients/caregivers to each of the eight main hospital pharmacies studied in Northwestern Nigeria, they didn't explain their method of differentiation for outpatients from inpatients before enrolling them in the exit-interviews.

iii. Besides, they didn't clearly describe the method to enroll each of the outpatients (outpatients or caregivers) for the interview. Did all the outpatients/caregivers contacting the hospital pharmacies with prescriptions are interviewed about their medication knowledge, counseling status, and pharmacy service satisfaction?

Action(s) taken, with reason(s) where relevant:

i. The reason why non-probability sampling was used has been outlined in lines 120-127.

ii. Before any patient/caregiver was interviewed for the study, the data collectors asked a question to confirm that they were outpatients. This information is included in line 153

iii. Study participants were randomly sampled for these interviews. This information is provided in lines 127 and 152.

Reviewers’ comment (Methods):

i. Authors need to explain their method on how they linked exit interviews of outpatients/caregivers with prescription reviews they did to obtain duration and frequency of use for the dispensed medicine in data collection section of the methods.

ii. Again, it is clear that non-parametric tests give crude hints of associations between exposure and outcome variables. However, it is not clear why did the authors employ non-parametric tests to assess associations between characteristics of respondents and their status of medication counseling satisfaction at exit from hospital pharmacies?

iii. I wonder how the authors could be sure on the association with this crude tests without further analytic tests.

Action(s) taken, with reason(s) where relevant:

i. This information is now included in lines 159-162

ii. Nonparametric tests were used because of the nature of the data collected (i.e., the data was not normally distributed).

iii. Further tests (Dunn-Bonferroni posthoc test) were conducted to identify the actual areas where these associations were seen. This information is now included in lines 187-189

Reviewers’ comment (results):

i. The authors relate overall satisfaction of respondents with medication counseling service using mean score found by non-parametric tests, but it is not clear which category of the characteristics had the actual association with the satisfaction outcome. For example, the characteristics.... 'Highest educational level completed' ...has five categories and the association that the authors tested shows statistical significance, but for which category did this occur was not clear. So, I wonder why authors preferred this statistical test for associations between variables.

ii. In table 4, authors present outpatients'/caregivers' knowledge of medicines they received from hospital pharmacies, but they didn't give summary measure of overall knowledge status for the variables considered. Better to include this in results section while also explaining ways how this summary measure was conducted in methods section of the manuscript.

iii. In the same table, responses look mismatched for name of medication categories. Please check this.

Action(s) taken, with reason(s) where relevant:

i. Information about the specific categories where the statistically significant differences were obtained has now been included in lines 239-251.

ii. We did not include a summary measure of overall medication knowledge because of the wide range of medications included in our knowledge assessment. We felt (and still feel) that it was not proper to pick out some arbitrary figure/level just to classify respondents as ‘knowledgeable’ or ‘poorly knowledgeable’. Instead, reporting the data as it is would help us highlight specific knowledge gaps that respondents had, identifying potential areas to be included in future intervention design.

iii. This has now been corrected (Table 4)

Reviewers’ comment (Discussion):

i. The first paragraph of the discussion shall indicate a brief overview of the key findings for the study that are to be interpreted one by one in next paragraphs. Instead, the authors restated their objective that needs correction.

ii. Again, ambiguity in this objective statement also needs correction to reflect what was exactly measured.

iii. The authors didn't explain details of why more educated respondents were less satisfied about the dispensed medication counseling service provided to them. By the same token, authors should well explain why a relatively reach respondents were less satisfied.

Action(s) taken, with reason(s) where relevant:

i. This has now been corrected (see lines 309-318)

ii. This objective has now been reworded as earlier recommended (lines 309-310)

iii. This explanation has now been provided in lines 345-348.

Reviewers’ comment (Conclusion): Some aspect of this conclusion looks general whilst few other key findings were omitted from these key message statements.

Action(s) taken, with reason(s) where relevant: The conclusion has now been reworded.

Submitted filename: Responses to review comments - PLoS one.docx

Click here for additional data file.

14 Feb 2022

20 Mar 2022

Dear Reviewer.

Thank you so much for taking your time to review our paper and offer constructive input. Please find below our response to the comment raised during the second review. Thank you again.

Reviewers’ comment: One thing (in results), the authors didn't address a summary measure of overall medication knowledge for a reason of wide range medications they assessed. However, this is not about picking a random number/figure as they claimed. They are supposed to evaluate correctness of outpatients for each item testing knowledge of users/guardians about the medicines they received. In this regard, correct answers of the users for all questions assessing knowledge can be evaluated for a summary measure description of the knowledge. Otherwise, it is doubtful about their systematic assessment of the clients' knowledge at exit from drug outlets.

Action(s) taken, with reason(s) where relevant: This is noted. A summary measure of overall medication knowledge has now been included in the manuscript (see lines 263 to 264). A few lines have also now been added to the methods section (lines 185-191) describing how the summary measure was calculated.

Submitted filename: Responses to review comments - PLoS one.docx

Click here for additional data file.

28 Mar 2022

An Exploratory Study of Outpatient Medication Knowledge and Satisfaction with Medication Counselling at Selected Hospital Pharmacies in Northwestern Nigeria

PONE-D-21-18329R2

Dear Dr. Abdu-Aguye ,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

John Rovers, PharmD, MIPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

31 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-18329R2

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF OUTPATIENT MEDICATION KNOWLEDGE AND SATISFACTION WITH MEDICATION COUNSELLING AT SELECTED HOSPITAL PHARMACIES IN NORTHWESTERN NIGERIA

Dear Dr. Abdu-Aguye:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. John Rovers

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE