METHODOLOGY: The current study was a descriptive, cross-sectional, online study directed to the HCPs working in a metropolitan city of Karachi, during February 2020 and March 2020 using a self-administered questionnaire. A systematic random sampling approach was adopted.
RESULTS: A total of 286 completed surveys were incorporated in the investigation with a response rate of 74.28%. The median (interquartile range, IQR) knowledge score was 18.79 (17.64-19.57). Physicians were found to be more knowledgeable (OR: 1.32, 95% CI: 0.17-4.26, p = 0.003) as compared to other HCPs. Similarly, the HCPs working in private work settings (OR: 1.94, 95% CI: 1.54-2.79, p=0.001), having more experience (OR = 1.82; 95% CI = 1.64-2.78; p < 0.005) were found to be more well-informed than HCPs working in public sector (OR = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.63-0.72; p = 0.004). The correlation between the knowledge and attitude of respondents was found to be significantly correlated (correlation coefficient: 0.13, p < 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the study revealed that HCPs were well conversant and have an optimistic attitude towards COVID-19. Further contemplates are required to evaluate the understanding of HCPs at a national level so that viable mediations could be planned to combat this pandemic.
Methods: The cross-sectional study was conducted from August 2019 to November 2019. The community pharmacies, clinical and academic settings in Karachi were approached for gathering the responses of pharmacists towards BSMs and interchangeable products using a 30-item survey form. Pearson correlation and independent sample t-test were used to identify the relationship among independent variables and the responses, considering p values <0.05 as statistically significant.
Results: Overall, there were 305 survey forms used with a response rate of 87.14%. More than 80% of the respondents have good knowledge about the definition, characteristics, safety and efficacy, compatibility, cost issues, and utilization of BSMs. Around half of the respondents (48.9%, [95% CI 46.6-51.2]) were confident in using BSMs in clinical practice. However, they were concerned about the BSM's safety profile (45.2%, [95% CI 42.1-48.3]), quality (30.2%, [95% CI 28.3-32.1]), and efficacy issues (32.3%, [95% CI 31.2-37.5]).
Conclusion: The findings revealed that pharmacists were well informed about the BSMs. However, some of the responses to the attitude demonstrated a lack of understanding of the application of that knowledge. The respondents persuaded that advanced patterns of diseases, product marketing stipulations, and need for better patient care drives higher demand for developing BSMs and were enthusiastic about gaining more insight to integrate BSMs into routine clinical practice.
Methods: The study was conducted for the duration of 5 months - November 2018 to March 2019 - in different clinics and tertiary care hospitals of Karachi, Pakistan. Respondents were interviewed by our researchers using 30 items questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the answers of respondents to survey items. Pearson correlation and independent sample t-test were employed to recognize the association between the responses of participants and independent variables. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Results: A total of 421 questionnaires were completed by physicians and clinical pharmacists. The mean age of the study participants was 49.5 years. Around 98% of pharmacists and 93.5% of physicians were well conversant with the definition of unlicensed and off-label drugs. Around 68% of physicians and 77% of pharmacists reported that they were more concerned about the efficacy of such drugs as compared to that of licensed medicines in children. The most frequent off-label categories observed in the study were dose (65.21%) and indication (17.52%). A vast majority (>80%) thought that approving new drugs by regulatory authorities will drop the occurrence of medication errors due to incorrect dosing. The British National Formulary (BNF) for children was used as the best reliable source of information among respondents.
Conclusion: The present study highlighted the common practice of unlicensed and off-label drug prescribing in pediatrics; however, respondents showed their concern towards decreasing such practice and are likely to welcome initiatives intended to assure medication safety in children.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the economic burden of COPD in Malaysia, including direct costs for the management of COPD and indirect costs due to productivity losses for COPD patients.
METHODOLOGY: Overall, 150 patients with an established diagnosis of COPD were followed-up for a period of 1 year from August 2018 to August 2019. An activity-based costing, 'bottom-up' approach was used to calculate direct costs, while indirect costs of patients were assessed using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire.
RESULTS: The mean annual per-patient direct cost for the management of COPD was calculated as US$506.92. The mean annual costs per patient in the management phase, emergency department visits, and hospital admissions were reported as US$395.65, US$86.4, and US$297.79, respectively; 31.66% of COPD patients visited the emergency department and 42.47% of COPD patients were admitted to the hospital due to exacerbation. The annual mean indirect cost per patient was calculated as US$1699.76. Productivity losses at the workplace were reported as 31.87% and activity limitations were reported as 17.42%.
CONCLUSION: Drugs and consumables costs were the main cost-driving factors in the management of COPD. The higher ratio of indirect cost to direct medical costs shows that therapeutic interventions aimed to prevent work productivity losses may reduce the economic burden of COPD.
METHODS: A month-long study was conducted in patients attending physical therapy sessions at clinics in two tertiary care hospitals in Karachi, Pakistan. It was done using block randomization technique. Sample size was calculated based on item-to-respondent ratio of 1:20. The GRAS was developed and validated using content validity, factor analyses, known group validity, and sensitivity analysis. Receiver operator curve analysis was used to determine cut-off value. Reliability and internal consistency were measured using test-retest method. Data was analyzed through IBM SPSS version 23. The study was ethically approved (IRB-NOV:15).
RESULTS: A total of 300 responses were gathered. The response rate was 92%. The final version of GRAS contained 8 items and had a content validity index of 0.89. Sampling adequacy was satisfactory, (KMO 0.7, Bartlett's test p-value 0.95 while absolute fit index of root mean square of error of approximation was
METHODS: A novel research instrument known as the rheumatoid arthritis knowledge assessment scale (RAKAS) which consisted of 13 items, was formulated by a rheumatology panel and used for this study. This study was conducted in rheumatology clinics of three tertiary care hospitals in Karachi, Pakistan. The study was conducted in March-April 2018. Patients were recruited using a randomized computer-generated list of appointments. Sample size was calculated based on item-to-respondent ratio of 1:15. The validities, factor structure, sensitivity, reliability and internal consistency of RAKAS were assessed. The study was approved by the institutional Ethics Committee.
RESULTS: A total of 263 patients responded to the study. Content validity was 0.93 and response rate was 89.6%. Factor analysis revealed a 3-factor structure. Fit indices, namely normed fit index (NFI), Tucker Lewis index (TLI), comparative fit index (CFI) and root mean square of error approximation (RMSEA) were calculated with satisfactory results, that is, NFI, TLI and CFI > 0.9, and RMSEA 19 and difficulty index <0.95. Sensitivity and specificity of RAKAS were above 90%. The tool established construct and known group validities.
CONCLUSION: A novel tool to document disease knowledge in patients with RA was formulated and validated.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted for 2 months in 2 tertiary care hospitals in Karachi, Pakistan. Sample size was calculated based on item-subject ratio. The translation was carried out using standard procedures for translation and cross-culture adaptation. The validation process included estimation of discrimination power, item difficulty index, factorial, convergent, construct and known group validities and reliability. Reliability of the scale was estimated using Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 and a value of σ2 ≥ 0.6 was acceptable. SPSS v23, Remark Classic OMR v6 software and MedCalc Statistical Software v16.4.3, were used to analyze the data. The study was approved by the relevant ethics committee (IRB#NOV:15).
RESULTS: The mean score was 7.68 ± 2.52 (95% CI: 7.31-8.05) for 177 patients. The σ2 = 0.601, that is, >0.6, test-retest reliability ρ = .753, P