Background: Our study was conducted to determine the prevalence of drug-related problems (DRPs) in outpatient prescriptions, the impact of DRPs on treatment efficacy, safety, and cost, and the determinants of DRPs in prescribing for pediatric outpatients in Vietnam. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted on pediatric outpatients at a pediatric hospital in Can Tho, Vietnam. DRPs were classified according to the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe classification (PCNE) of 2020. The study determined prevalence of DRPs and their impacts on efficacy, safety, and cost. Multivariate regression was used to identify the determinants of DRPs. Results: The study included 4339 patients (mean age 4.3, 55.8% male), with a total of 3994 DRPs, averaging 0.92 DRP/prescription. The proportion of prescriptions with at least one DRP was 65.7%. DRPs included inappropriate drug selection (35.6%), wrong time of dosing relative to meals (35.6%), inappropriate dosage form (9.3%), inappropriate indication (7.1%), and drug-drug interactions (0.3%). The consensus of experts was average when evaluating each aspect of efficiency reduction, safety reduction, and treatment cost increase, with Fleiss’ coefficients of 0.558, 0.511, and 0.541, respectively (p < 0.001). Regarding prescriptions, 50.1% were assessed as reducing safety. The figures for increased costs and decreased treatment effectiveness were 29.0% and 23.9%, respectively. Patients who were ≤ 2 years old were more likely to have DRPs than patients aged 2 to 6 years old (OR = 0.696; 95% CI = 0.599–0.809) and patients aged over 6 years old (OR = 0.801; 95% CI = 0.672–0.955). Patients who had respiratory system disease were more likely to have DRPs than patients suffering from other diseases (OR = 0.715; 95% CI = 0.607–0.843). Patients with comorbidities were less likely to have DRPs than patients with no comorbidities (OR = 1.421; 95% CI = 1.219–1.655). Patients prescribed ≥ 5 drugs were more likely to have DRPs than patients who took fewer drugs (OR = 3.677; 95% CI = 2.907–4.650). Conclusion: The proportion of prescriptions in at least one DRP was quite high. Further studies should evaluate clinical significance and appropriate interventions, such as providing drug information and consulting doctors about DRPs.
objective To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ) and the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) into Vietnamese.methods We followed the guideline by Beaton et al. (2000Beaton et al. ( & 2007. Stage I: two translators (informed and uninformed) translated the questionnaires. Stage II: the translations were synthesised. Stage III: back translation was performed by two translators fluent in both Vietnamese and English but na€ ıve to the outcome measurement. Stage IV: seven experts reached consensus on the pre-final Vietnamese version (BIPQ-V and BMQ-V). Stage V: field test of the questionnaires on 16 twelveyear-old students and 31 Vietnamese patients. In addition, we determined the internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the questionnaires in 34 Vietnamese patients with acute coronary syndrome.results All experts agreed that there was semantic, idiomatic, experiential and conceptual equivalence between the original and pre-final Vietnamese versions of the BIPQ and BMQ. Cronbach's alpha coefficients of the internal consistency were acceptable for the BMQ-V Specific-Necessity (0.64), BMQ-V Specific-Concerns (0.62) and BMQ-V General-Harm (0.60), with the exception of BMQ-V General-Overuse (0.27). Intra-class correlation coefficients of the test-retest reliability were acceptable for the subscales of BMQ-V (range: 0.77-0.86), and BIPQ-V items (range: 0.62-0.85) with the exception of BIPQ-V 1 (0.44, 95% CI À014 to 0.72) and BIPQ-V 4 (0.57, 95% CI 0.22-0.81).conclusions The Vietnamese version of BIPQ and BMQ are reliable tools to assess illness perceptions and beliefs about medicines of patients with acute coronary syndrome. Psychometric properties of these questionnaires should be tested in different patient populations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.