Search

Purpose: Saudi Arabia is one of the leading nations in the world in terms of the high frequency of chronic diseases and their associated risk factors. Knowledge and awareness are crucial for pharmacists to play an active role in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVD). The current study assessed the pharmacists' knowledge, attitude, and practice to determine the potential differences with respect to their respective practice settings toward CVD prevention and related health promotions., Methods: It is a cross-sectional study targeted the registered pharmacists in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. An online questionnaire was prepared, and the link was circulated through various social media platforms. Descriptive statistics, multivariate linear regression analysis and chi square test were used to analyze the data accordingly., Results: A total of 324 pharmacists were included in the study. Among these, 157 (48.4 %) were community pharmacists, and the remaining were hospital pharmacists (51.6 %). No significant differences in knowledge scores were observed between community and hospital pharmacists. The mean attitude score among community and hospital pharmacists was found to be 26.40 ± 5.125 and 25.09 ± 5.393 respectively, which was statistically significant ( p  = 0.026). Similarly, the total practice scores across the settings were statistically significant ( p  = 0.02). Gender plays a significant role in terms of knowledge scores among both community and hospital pharmacists ( p  = 0.016 & 0.029). Gender, professional practice experience, and number of prescriptions handled and prescriptions with CVD medications showed significant differences in the distribution of positive attitudes and good practice frequency between community and hospital pharmacists., Conclusion: It is evident that there is a deficiency in knowledge among hospital pharmacists compared to community pharmacists. Which indicates that there is a need for a rigorous continuous pharmacy education covering the fundamental aspects of CVD primary prevention and health promotion among pharmacists, given more focus on hospital pharmacists., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Background: E-learning is a modern and flexible mode of education and is being used as an alternative to conventional mode of education during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. However evidence suggests that effectiveness of e-learning is influenced by many prevailing factors., Methods: A cross sectional study aimed to evaluate health care students' perception towards implementation of e-learning was conducted for a period of 4 months, from April 2020 to July 2020. Research instrument consisted of a self-designed, qualitative questionnaire with three domains was validated using field pretest method and administered among health care students of King Khalid University using social media platforms. Chi square test was used to estimate the effect of e-learning on various domains whereas linear regression analysis was used to find the association between subjects' characteristics to overall domain scores. P value < 0.05 was considered significant., Results: Among 254 respondents 59.8% were males and 96.5% respondents were staying with their families.10.2% reported medically imposed quarantine for one or more family members. 59.8% reported that the online classes were commenced too early. 63.4% of the respondents reported that they had no previous experience. Poor network connectivity (32.3%) and unawareness about online platforms (29.9%), poor audio/video qualities (26.3%) were found as major barriers. Psychological stress, discipline of study, living status and quarantine history had a remarkable impact on the effectiveness of online education., Conclusion: Health care students are still cynical and are yet to embrace e-learning fully. Psychological distress, technical issues in association with accessibility, inexperience and unpreparedness were found to be main barriers that limited student acceptance of e-learning., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Introduction: The prevalence of secondary failure to oral hypoglycemic agents among type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients ranges from 30 to 60%. The alternative approaches to overcome this issue are either switching to triple oral hypoglycemic agents (OHA) or intensifying the regimen by adding insulin., Objective: To compare the glycemic control achieved with biphasic insulin plus metformin and triple OHA in T2DM patients who were not adequately controlled with two OHA regimen., Methods: A qualitative prospective study was conducted at Asir diabetes center, Abha, KSA. Poorly controlled T2DM patients with two OHA for at least 1 year with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) >7.0% were included. Subjects were divided into group I (a third OHA was added to the existing two OHA regimen) and group II (switched over to Biphasic insulin and metformin). At baseline and 3-month intervals, level of HbA1C, Fasting Plasma Glucose (FPG), Postprandial Plasma Glucose (PPG), Blood Pressure (BP), lipid profile and hypoglycemic episodes were obtained and evaluated for one year., Results: 41.1% of patients were in group I and 58.9% were in group II. At the end of the study, there was a significant reduction in HbA1c in group II subjects comparing to group I (8.18 ± 1.32 vs 8.79 ± 1.81, p = 0.0238). FPG and PPG were improved also in group II. The mean body weight increased from baseline in group II is +4.48 kg and decreased from baseline in group I (-0.46 kg). 11.3% from group I and 23.7% from group II reported hypoglycaemic incidences., Conclusion: Biphasic insulin and metformin regimen could be an appropriate therapeutic option for achieving good glycemic control compared with triple OHA in patients with two OHA failure., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.)