Suppr超能文献

在提供非处方产品咨询时是否涉及基于证据的标准?社区药店的观察性研究。

Are evidence-based criteria addressed during counseling on over-the-counter products? An observational study in community pharmacies.

机构信息

Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany; Drug Safety Center, University Hospital of Leipzig and Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.

Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany; Drug Safety Center, University Hospital of Leipzig and Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany.

出版信息

Patient Educ Couns. 2021 Nov;104(11):2824-2829. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2021.03.021. Epub 2021 Mar 17.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

We examined whether evidence-based criteria were addressed during counseling on over-the-counter products (OTCs) in community pharmacies.

METHODS

Consultations were observed in 10 community pharmacies. We analyzed communications about OTCs to determine if any information on three evidence-based criteria (outcome variables: scientific evidence such as clinical study results, pharmaceutical staff's experience, and customer's experience) was mentioned. Two groups of communications were compared with Pearson's chi-square and Fisher's exact test, as appropriate: The communications about OTCs recommended by the pharmaceutical staff vs. the communications about OTCs requested by customers.

RESULTS

In 379 observed consultations, 300 OTCs were recommended by staff and 390 OTCs were requested by customers. The least included criterion was scientific evidence (in OTCs recommended by pharmaceutical staff - 1% vs. requested by customers - 0%), followed by pharmaceutical staff's experience (5% vs. 1%). The customer's experience was addressed more frequently (14% vs. 41%). Statistically significant differences between the two groups were found for all criteria (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Evidence-based criteria were rarely addressed during counseling on OTCs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Pharmaceutical staff should be encouraged to include the three evidence-based criteria more frequently. Additionally, customers should be encouraged to request such information from the staff in community pharmacies.

摘要

目的

我们研究了在社区药店对非处方产品(OTC)进行咨询时是否涉及基于证据的标准。

方法

观察了 10 家社区药店的咨询。我们分析了有关 OTC 的交流,以确定是否提到了三个基于证据的标准(结果变量:临床研究结果等科学证据、药剂师的经验和客户的经验)的任何信息。两组交流使用 Pearson's chi-square 和 Fisher's exact test 进行比较,适当的情况下:药剂师推荐的 OTC 交流与客户要求的 OTC 交流。

结果

在观察到的 379 次咨询中,有 300 种 OTC 是由工作人员推荐的,有 390 种 OTC 是由客户要求的。最不包括的标准是科学证据(在药剂师推荐的 OTC 中为 1%,而在客户要求的 OTC 中为 0%),其次是药剂师的经验(5%比 1%)。更频繁地涉及客户的经验(14%比 41%)。两组之间的所有标准都存在统计学差异(p < 0.05)。

结论

在 OTC 咨询中很少涉及基于证据的标准。

实践意义

应鼓励药剂师更频繁地包括三个基于证据的标准。此外,应鼓励客户在社区药店向工作人员索取此类信息。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验