IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i2p1635-d1037686.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of Knowledge, Attitude and Practices of the Hospital and Community Pharmacists in Saudi Arabia (Jeddah) towards Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults

Author

Listed:
  • Adel A. Alfahmi

    (School of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart 7000, Australia)

  • Colin M. Curtain

    (School of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart 7000, Australia)

  • Mohammed S. Salahudeen

    (School of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart 7000, Australia)

Abstract

In Saudi Arabia, the older adult population is growing and is projected to increase three-fold by 2030. Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) are harmful to older adults’ and have a direct impact on clinical, health and economic outcomes. Pharmacists have a vital role in medication tailoring for older adults as multidisciplinary team members. However, there is also a paucity of research regarding pharmacists’ participation in detecting and avoiding PIMs use among older adults in Saudi Arabia. A cross-sectional, self-administered survey was conducted to assess the knowledge, practices, and attitude of pharmacists from seven hospitals and ten community pharmacies in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The survey comprised three sections; (i) identifying participants’ general characteristics, (ii) assessing their knowledge of PIMs use in older adults and (iii) examining the pharmacist’s attitude towards the procedures followed in dispensing for older adults. Inferential and descriptive statistics were used to analyse the survey data. A total of 157 community and hospital pharmacists participated in this study. Most of them dispensed medication weekly to older adults (85.4%), and 43.3% had relevant work experience of six to ten years. Though 44.6% of the participants were aware of PIMs that older adults should avoid, only 10.8% claimed adequate knowledge about PIMs. From the given three clinical case scenarios, a minority of pharmacists (21.7%) chose the correct answers, with a mean score of 2.38 ± 2.91 (95% CI 2.35–3.15). Participants who claimed to have knowledge of PIMs had a significantly higher mean score than those who did not, 4.59 ± 2.81 25 (95% CI 2.35–2.61). A minority of the pharmacists (14.7%) used screening tools such as STOPP, Beers criteria, or Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) to detect PIMs in older adults. No statistically significant differences were detected when comparing the levels of knowledge of pharmacists with 1 to 5 years of practice to pharmacists with 6 to 15 and more years of experience ( p = 0.431). Pharmacists’ knowledge, attitude and practices toward PIMs use in older adults in Saudi Arabia should be improved. The application of PIMs detection tools such as STOPP/START or Beers criteria currently has no place in day-to-day pharmacists’ roles in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, concerned stakeholders should develop educational programs to improve pharmacists’ knowledge of PIMs and promote the effective use of PIM screening tools such as Beers and STOPP criteria in their practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Adel A. Alfahmi & Colin M. Curtain & Mohammed S. Salahudeen, 2023. "Assessment of Knowledge, Attitude and Practices of the Hospital and Community Pharmacists in Saudi Arabia (Jeddah) towards Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-13, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:2:p:1635-:d:1037686
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/2/1635/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/2/1635/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dedan Opondo & Saied Eslami & Stefan Visscher & Sophia E de Rooij & Robert Verheij & Joke C Korevaar & Ameen Abu-Hanna, 2012. "Inappropriateness of Medication Prescriptions to Elderly Patients in the Primary Care Setting: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-9, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Miguel Ángel Hernández-Rodríguez & Ermengol Sempere-Verdú & Caterina Vicens-Caldentey & Francisca González-Rubio & Félix Miguel-García & Vicente Palop-Larrea & Ramón Orueta-Sánchez & Óscar Esteban-Jim, 2021. "Drug Prescription Profiles in Patients with Polypharmacy in Spain: A Large-Scale Pharmacoepidemiologic Study Using Real-World Data," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-10, April.
    2. Arim Kwak & Yoo Jin Moon & Yun-Kyoung Song & Hwi-Yeol Yun & Kyungim Kim, 2019. "Economic Impact of Pharmacist-Participated Medication Management for Elderly Patients in Nursing Homes: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-19, August.
    3. Xisco Reus & Maria Lluisa Sastre & Alfonso Leiva & Belén Sánchez & Cristina García-Serra & Ignatios Ioakeim-Skoufa & Caterina Vicens, 2022. "LESS-PHARMA Study: Identifying and Deprescribing Potentially Inappropriate Medication in the Elderly Population with Excessive Polypharmacy in Primary Care," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-10, October.
    4. Quaglio, GianLuca & Karapiperis, Theodoros & Van Woensel, Lieve & Arnold, Elleke & McDaid, David, 2013. "Austerity and health in Europe," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 13-19.
    5. Sonja Kallio & Tiina Eskola & Marika Pohjanoksa-Mäntylä & Marja Airaksinen, 2020. "Medication Risk Management in Routine Dispensing in Community Pharmacies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-12, November.
    6. Oliver Reich & Thomas Rosemann & Roland Rapold & Eva Blozik & Oliver Senn, 2014. "Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Patients in Swiss Managed Care Plans: Prevalence, Determinants and Association with Hospitalization," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-9, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:2:p:1635-:d:1037686. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.