METHOD: A literature search using electronic databases including PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Science Direct, Springer Link, Proquest, Ebsco Host and Google Scholar was conducted. Additional articles were identified by reviewing the bibliography of retrieved articles. The articles were searched with any of the following medical subject headings (MeSH) terms in the title: attitude, awareness, knowledge, experience, view, off-label, pediatric, paediatric and children. The inclusion criteria were full text articles published in English between January 2004 and February 2015 and reported outcome related to awareness, knowledge and views regarding off-label prescribing in children. Editorials, reviews, notes, conference proceedings, letters and studies reporting prevalence of off-label prescribing were excluded. The articles were scrutinized using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Eleven studies conducted among doctors, community pharmacists, paediatric nurses, parents and children met the inclusion criteria. Nine themes were developed through document analysis which included main domains such as knowledge, awareness and views on off-label drug use in children, choice of information sources, reasons and suggestions to reduce off-label prescribing, concern regarding obtaining consent and participation in clinical trials.
CONCLUSION: The studies reviewed reported that the majority of doctors and community pharmacists were familiar with the term off-label prescribing but knowledge among parents was low. Awareness on off-label prescribing in children remains low among all study participants. There is a mismatch between views on off-label prescribing in children of study participants and the finding of previous studies.
METHODS: A bibliometric review was conducted on literature from over 23 years from January 2000 to May 2023. Articles focusing on any type of OSCE research in pharmacy education in both undergraduate and postgraduate sectors were included. Articles were excluded if they were not original articles or not published in English. A summative content analysis was also conducted to identify key topics.
RESULTS: A total of 192 articles were included in the analysis. There were 242 institutions that contributed to the OSCE literature in pharmacy education, with the leading country being Canada. Most OSCE research came from developed countries and were descriptive studies based on single institution data. The top themes emerging from content analysis were student perceptions on OSCE station styles (n = 98), staff perception (n = 19), grade assessment of OSCEs (n = 145), interprofessional education (n = 11), standardized patients (n = 12), and rubric development and standard setting (n = 8).
IMPLICATIONS: There has been a growth in virtual OSCEs, interprofessional OSCEs, and artificial intelligence OSCEs. Communication rubrics and minimizing assessor variability are still trending research areas. There is scope to conduct more research on evaluating specific types of OSCEs, when best to hold an OSCE, and comparing OSCEs to other assessments.
DESIGN: Pragmatic multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Residents across 4 nursing homes in Singapore were included if they were aged 65 years and above, and taking 5 or more medications.
METHODS: The intervention involved a 5-step deprescribing intervention, which involved a multidisciplinary team-care medication review with pharmacists, physicians, and nurses (in which pharmacists discussed with other team members the feasibility of deprescribing and implementation using the Beers and STOPP criteria) or to an active waitlist control for the first 3 months.
RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-five residents from 4 nursing homes participated in the study from February 2017 to March 2018. At 6 months, the deprescribing intervention did not reduce falls. Subgroup analysis showed that intervention reduced fall risk scores within the deprescribing-naïve group by 0.18 (P = .04). Intervention was associated with a reduction in mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval 0.07, 0.41; P