Krska J.,Universities of Greenwich and Kent |
Du Plessis R.,Cheshire and Merseyside Public Health Collaborative Service
Journal of Public Health (United Kingdom) | Year: 2015
Background Since the NHS Health Check programme was initiated in 2009, no survey has sought patients' views of Checks provided by GP practices and few studies have reported views of the wider public. This study sought the views and experiences of patients with potentially high-cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Methods Cross-sectional postal survey of all the patients with an actual or estimated CVD risk score of at least 20% over 10 years, registered with 16 general practices in Sefton, North West England, with no follow-up. Results The response rate was 23.4% (644/2958), 67.4% had attended and 73.8% of those not yet invited indicated willingness to attend. Both groups had positive views towards Health Checks, but more non-attenders agreed these should only be performed by doctors. Attenders had better self-reported health and healthy lifestyle than non-attenders. Overall 86.6% of attenders recalled receiving one or more pieces of lifestyle advice and 71.0% claimed to have made at least one lifestyle change; however, perception and understanding of CVD risk appeared limited. Conclusion Both attenders and non-attenders had positive views towards NHS Health Checks in general practice and resultant self-reported lifestyle change in attenders was high. Clearer written information and explanation of personal CVD risk are required. © 2014 The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Faculty of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: email@example.com.
Barzegar-Jalali M.,Tabriz University of Medical Sciences |
Valizadeh H.,Tabriz University of Medical Sciences |
Shadbad M.-R.S.,Tabriz University of Medical Sciences |
Adibkia K.,Tabriz University of Medical Sciences |
And 5 more authors.
Powder Technology | Year: 2010
Gliclazide is practically insoluble in water. In order to improve the drug dissolution rate, cogrinding method was used as an approach to prepare gliclazide coground/solid dispersions (SDs) in the carriers such as povidone (PVP-K30), crospovidone and microcrystalline cellulose (Avicel PH 101) with different drug to carrier ratios. The dissolution rate of gliclazide from the SDs was measured at two physiological pH values of 1.2 and 7.2 simulating gastric and intestinal fluids using USP dissolution apparatus II. The concentration of the dissolved drug in the medium was determined by direct or first-derivative UV spectroscopy. The dissolution rates of the formulations were dependent on the nature and ratio of drug to carriers in SDs and the corresponding physical mixtures as well as the pH of the medium. At a higher pH the drug has a faster dissolution than at a lower pH. The fastest dissolution rates were observed from coground formulations with the drug to carrier ratio of 1:5. The amount of drug dissolved in 15 min from these SDs was varied from 96% in the case of Avicel SD to 100% for SD of PVP. Whereas the amount of drug released in the same time from unground drug powder (UD), ground drug powder (GD) and all physical mixtures was between 60 and 80%. These results indicate that the dissolution rate is highly enhanced from the SDs. DSC as well as X-ray diffraction showed reduced drug crystallinity in SDs. Scanning electron microscopy and particle size analysis revealed significant decreased particle size of the drug in SDs. FT-IR spectroscopy demonstrated no detectable interactions between the drug and carriers. In addition to latter evidence, increased wettability and hydrophilicity of drug particles and deaggregation brought about by the carriers are the reasons for enhanced drug dissolution from the SDs. One of the possible advantages of formulating an insoluble drug such as gliclazide is that if it is used in preparation of capsules or tablets of the drug, its dose might be reduced which is economically beneficial. © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Phueanpinit P.,Khon Kaen University |
Jarernsiripornkul N.,Khon Kaen University |
Pongwecharak J.,Thammasat University |
Krska J.,Universities of Greenwich and Kent
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy | Year: 2014
Background Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used for patients to manage pain and inflammation, especially in older adults. Failure to cope with some adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of NSAIDs could lead to more serious symptoms, therefore, providing useful information about medicine is an important step in protecting patients from developing serious ADRs. The pharmacy service should be a frequent source of medicine information for patients, however in Thailand, little is known about pharmacists’ provision of safety information to patients for management and prevention of these ADRs. Objective Aims of this study were to determine Thai hospital pharmacists’ roles in providing drug safety information and to assess their attitudes towards the importance of giving drug safety education to patients. Setting All government hospitals in north-eastern Thailand. Methods This study was a cross-sectional survey. A total of 761 pharmacists in 287 hospitals in north-eastern Thailand were selected by stratified random sampling. Self-administered questionnaires were sent by post, with two reminders. Main outcome measures Proportion of hospital pharmacists providing ADR information on NSAIDs to patients, factors affecting this provision, and pharmacist attitudes towards drug safety education for patients. Results The response rate was 54.8 % (N = 417), the majority of respondents worked in community hospitals (57.2 %). A total of 347 pharmacists (83.6 %) had informed patients about ADRs, although less than half had informed patients about ADR monitoring and management (36.6 % and 44.1 % respectively). The proportion of time spent in direct patient contact, type of hospital, and other routine work were associated with the frequency of drug safety information provision. Pharmacists had moderately good attitudinal scores towards drug safety education (62.2 ± 5.4), with significantly higher scores found in those who provided most ADR information to patients (60.3 ± 5.2 vs. 62.6 ± 5.4, P = 0.002). The majority (82.2 %) agreed that patient information leaflets should be provided. Conclusions Thai hospital pharmacists’ provision of ADR information for NSAIDs may occur less frequently than is desirable. However, their positive attitude towards provision of ADR information suggests that drug safety education by pharmacists should be routinely provided to patients, particularly patients at high risk of NSAID use. © 2014, Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering der Pharmacie.
PubMed | Thammasat University, Universities of Greenwich and Kent and Khon Kaen University
Type: Journal Article | Journal: Expert opinion on drug safety | Year: 2016
To determine sources of information about NSAIDs used by out-patients, factors related to receipt of information and patient attitudes towards receiving safety information.Cross-sectional survey, using self-completed questionnaires distributed directly to 500 outpatients prescribed any NSAIDs from an orthopaedic clinic in Thailand, over a 4-month period.There were 548 patients approached and 474 completed questionnaires returned (94.8%). The most frequent aspects of medicines information that were provided related to administration (97.2%), mostly provided by pharmacists, and indication (85.8%), mostly provided by physicians. Information on identifying, monitoring and managing adverse effects was received by fewer than 50% of patients. Safety information was received significantly more frequently by younger patients (P<0.01), those using non-selective COX-2 inhibitors (P<0.001), intermittent NSAIDs (P<0.05) and fewer concomitant medicines (P<0.05). Only 14.1% patients used additional information sources. Attitudes towards receiving medicines safety information were positive. Most patients agreed they should know about ADRs (98.1%) and receive information leaflets with first prescription (96.8%).Patients received medicines information mostly from healthcare professionals, but safety information was limited. Type of NSAIDs, regularity of NSAID use and age affected receipt of safety information about NSAIDs. Provision of more medicine information is needed, particularly written documents.
PubMed | Thammasat University, Universities of Greenwich and Kent and Khon Kaen University
Type: Journal Article | Journal: International journal of clinical pharmacy | Year: 2016
The importance of promoting the use of patient-oriented medicines leaflets is recognized in many countries. Leaflets should include basic information plus specific warnings, and be provided with all medicines, but there is little attempt at enforcement of these requirements in Thailand.To determine content and availability of Thai information leaflets for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).Leaflets for all NSAIDs available for purchase from 34 pharmacies in a large city were evaluated against a checklist and number of leaflets assessed against number of medicine packs available in each pharmacy.Of the 76 leaflets for ten different NSAIDs, 67 (88 %) were for locally manufactured products. Only 22 % of 76 leaflets were sufficient in number for distribution with medicines, while only 4 % had patient-oriented leaflets. No leaflet covered all topics in the checklist. Less than half included safety information, such as contraindications (46 %), precautions (47 %), and adverse drug reactions (34 %). Locally-produced leaflets provided less information than those for originator products and no leaflet included all the warnings required by Thai regulations.This study illustrates the variable availability and quality of NSAID information leaflets. The lack of accessible essential information about medicines in Thailand requires urgent attention to enable patients to minimise adverse reactions.
PubMed | Universities of Greenwich and Kent and Public Health England
Type: Journal Article | Journal: Primary health care research & development | Year: 2016
Aim To evaluate NHS Health Check implementation in terms of frequency of data recording, advice provided, referrals to community-based lifestyle support services, statin prescribing and new diagnoses, and to assess variation in these aspects between practices and health professionals involved in delivery.Most NHS Health Checks are delivered by general practices, but little detail is known about the extent of variation in how they are delivered in different practices and by different health professionals.This was an observational study conducted in a purposively selected sample of 13 practices in Sefton, North West England. Practices used previously recorded information from their clinical management systems to identify patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk 20%, a potentially cost-effective approach. The evaluation was conducted during the first year of delivery in Sefton. Data were extracted from medical records of all patients identified, regardless of Health Check attendance. Findings Of the 2892 patients identified by the 13 practices, 1070 had received an NHS Health Check at the time of the study. Of these, only 936 (87.5%) had a recorded CVD risk score, with risk 20% confirmed in 92.0%. Estimated risk category was correct in 456/677 (67.4%) of patients with estimated and actual risk scores. Significant variation was found between practices and health professionals in parameters recorded, tests requested, advice given and referrals for lifestyle support. Only 45.3% of patients had body mass index, smoking, alcohol, exercise, blood pressure and cholesterol all recorded. Lifestyle advice and referral into lifestyle services were documented in 80.6% and 6.4% of attenders, respectively, again with significant variation between practices and professionals. Statin prescribing rose in attenders from 19.6% to 34.6%. A similar proportion of attenders and non-attenders received new diagnoses.Effort is required to reduce variation in how practices deliver and follow-up NHS Health Checks, to ensure the consistency of the programme.
Patsuree A.,Khon Kaen University |
Krska J.,Universities of Greenwich and Kent |
Jarernsiripornkul N.,Khon Kaen University
Expert Opinion on Drug Safety | Year: 2016
Objective: To determine the frequency and characteristics of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), experiences of receiving and desire for information about medicines, and attitudes toward ADR knowledge and reporting among the community-dwelling Thai population.Methods: A cross-sectional self-administered survey conducted during October 2013 to December 2014 by convenience sampling. The study was conducted in three settings in the second-largest city, North-eastern Thailand: primary care units, community pharmacies and public areas.Results: Of 2400 respondents, 414 (17.3%) reported experiencing an ADR; two-thirds of which involved mild symptoms (66.7%) and 55.6% occurred within the last year. Self-reported ADR knowledge was low (4.1 ± 2.5 on a scale of 0 to 10). Pharmacists and physicians were the most common sources of information about medicines, but only 28.5% had received information about ADRs. Over 40% wanted information about ADRs and drug interactions, with healthcare professionals and information leaflets being desirable sources. The majority of individuals had positive views towards both receiving information and reporting their ADR experiences.Conclusions: To enable the Thai public to report their experiences of ADRs more effectively, they require more medicines information. Information leaflets should be more widely available, while healthcare professionals should provide more detailed information of ADRs. © 2016 Taylor & Francis.
Krska J.,Universities of Greenwich and Kent |
Morecroft C.W.,Liverpool John Moores University |
Poole H.,Liverpool John Moores University |
Rowe P.H.,Liverpool John Moores University
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy | Year: 2013
Background Polypharmacy is increasing and managing large number of medicines may create a burden for patients. Many patients have negative views of medicines and their use can adversely affect quality of life. No studies have specifically explored the impact of general long-term medicines use on quality of life. Objective To determine the issues which patients taking long-term medicines consider affect their day-to-day lives, including quality of life. Setting Four primary care general practices in North West England Methods Face-to-face interviews with adults living at home, prescribed four or more regular medicines for at least 1 year. Interviewees were identified from primary care medical records and purposively selected to ensure different types of medicines use. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Results Twenty-one interviews were conducted and analysed. Patients used an average of 7.8 medicines, 51 % were preventive, 40 % for symptom relief and 9 % treatment. Eight themes emerged: relationships with health professionals, practicalities, information, efficacy, side effects, attitudes, impact and control. Ability to discuss medicines with health professionals varied and many views were coloured by negative experiences, mainly with doctors. All interviewees had developed routines for using multiple medicines, some requiring considerable effort. Few felt able to exert control over medicines routines specified by health professionals. Over half sought additional information about medicines whereas others avoided this, trusting in doctors to guide their medicines use. Patients recognised their inability to assess efficacy for many medicines, notably those used for prophylaxis. All were concerned about possible side effects and some had poor experiences of discussing concerns with doctors. Medicines led to restrictions on social activities and personal life to the extent that, for some, life can revolve around medicines. Conclusion There is a multiplicity and complexity of issues surrounding medicines use, which impact on day-to-day lives for patients with long-term conditions. While most patients adapt to long-term medicines use, others did so at some cost to their quality of life. © Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering der Pharmacie 2013.
Krska J.,Universities of Greenwich and Kent |
Mackridge A.J.,Liverpool John Moores University
Public Health | Year: 2014
Objectives: To explore the views of community pharmacy staff, the general public and other stakeholders towards pharmacy-based alcohol screening and advice services. To involve all relevant stakeholders in designing an acceptable and feasible pharmacy-based alcohol screening and advice service. To evaluate a pilot service from the user perspective. Study design: Mixed methods study involving a range of populations, designed to explore multiple perspectives and enable triangulation of results, to develop an optimal service design, prior to service commissioning. Methods: Telephone interviews were conducted with relevant stakeholders and a street survey undertaken with the public to explore views on the desirability and feasibility of pharmacy-based alcohol services. Following this, a stakeholder working group was held, involving a nominal group technique, to develop and refine the service design. Finally a pilot service was evaluated from the user perspective through telephone interviews and direct observations by a trained researcher. Results: All stakeholder groups (pharmacy staff, public, commissioners, alcohol treatment service staff) viewed pharmacy-based alcohol screening services as acceptable and feasible with the potential for integration and/or combination with existing public health services. Privacy was the main concern of the public, but 80% were comfortable discussing alcohol in a pharmacy. These views were not influenced by drinking status age or gender, but people recruited in areas of high deprivation were more likely to accept a pro-active approach or alcohol-related advice from a pharmacist than those from areas of low deprivation. Stakeholder groups were in agreement on the acceptability of a pharmacy screening service, but alcohol treatment service staff viewed direct referral to alcohol support services less beneficial than other stakeholders. Posters in pharmacies and GP surgeries were viewed as most likely to encourage uptake of screening. Involvement of non-pharmacist pharmacy staff was seen as essential. The working group considered accessibility of pharmacies as the key facilitator for alcohol services, but agreed that an optimal service must ensure that poor pharmacy environment did not create a potential barrier, that clear information about the service's availability was necessary. Plus good use of quiet areas. Use of AUDIT-C as a prescreening tool by pharmacy staff, followed when appropriate by completion of full AUDIT by the pharmacist in a private room/quiet area was agreed as optimal to ensure accessibility plus privacy. Direct referral was viewed as desirable. Five pharmacies piloted this service for two months and recruited 164 people for alcohol screening, of whom 113 were low risk (AUDIT score 0-7), 24 increasing risk (8-19) and 28 high risk/possibly dependent drinkers (20 or above). Observations showed that pharmacy support staff were involved in proactively approaching customers, that 20 of the 72 customers observed (28%) during two hours in each pharmacy were invited for screening and that 14 (19%) accepted screening. Promotion of the service was variable dependent on company policies, but was shown to have a positive effect, as two of the ten service users interviewed requested screening. The environment was judged suitable for alcohol services in all pharmacies, but some quiet areas were not audibly discrete. Ten service users interviewed all considered the experience positive and all would recommend the service, but most wanted the service to be delivered in a private area. Conclusion: The methodology enabled the development of pharmacy-based alcohol screening to be assessed for acceptability and feasibility from multiple perspectives, prior to full service commissioning. Results suggest that the pharmacy environment and concerns about privacy need to be recognized as potential barriers to service delivery. Good promotion is required to maximize service uptake and pharmacy staff need to be involved in both this and in service delivery. © 2013 The Royal Society for Public Health.
PubMed | Universities of Greenwich and Kent and Khon Kaen University
Type: | Journal: European journal of clinical pharmacology | Year: 2016
The value of patients as potential reporters into pharmacovigilance systems is acknowledged worldwide and allowed in Thailand. However, nothing is known about the Thai publics awareness of direct patient reporting facility or their views concerning it. This study aimed to determine confidence among members of the public in identifying suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs), information sources they use and their views towards direct ADR reporting.Mixed methods study consisting of self-administered questionnaires (phase 1) and semi-structured, face-to-face interviews (phase 2) with members of the public recruited in primary care centres, pharmacies and public places during October 2013 to February 2015. All questionnaire respondents reporting an ADR were invited to participate in phase 2. Written informed consent was made before the start of the interview.There were 414 (17.2%) of 2400 questionnaire respondents who had experienced an ADR, almost half (46%) of whom used their own experience to identify ADRs. Having a degree, having a severe ADR and consulting a physician increased respondent confidence in the association between medicine and suspected ADR. The majority (27) of the 30 interviewees indicated general agreement with patient reporting to regulatory authorities. Four main themes emerged covering reasons for reporting ADRs including expectations of health authorities, healthcare professionals and manufacturers, and helping other people. Awareness of direct reporting was low with a desire for a range of reporting methods.Results indicate support among the Thai general public of direct ADR reporting. Greater promotion of direct reporting by all healthcare professionals is required.