Background To promote an acceptance rate of COVID-19 immunization among Thai children, concerns about parental vaccination hesitancy should be urgently studied. This study aimed to examine the parental COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy (PVh) level and influencing factors among Thai parents of children 5–18 years of age. Methods This cross-sectional survey was conducted in Thailand during May and June of 2022. The Google forms for data collection were distributed to parents (a father, a mother, or one who nurtures and raises a child) via various online social media. Data regarding PVh level, relevant attitudes, experiences of COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination (EC&V), and family contexts (FC) were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare the differences among groups of parents based on EC&V and FC. The factors influencing PVh were assessed by multiple regression analysis. Results Four hundred and eighty-eight parents completed the online questionnaire. Their median (IQR) age was 41 (35–47) years. They lived in different provinces from all regions across Thailand. Ninety percent of them were authorized persons to make decision about children vaccination. Fifty-eight percent of the respondents had vaccine hesitancy, defined as PVh level at moderate or above. Parents who had ever refused COVID-19 vaccination for themselves or refused to vaccinate their children against any other diseases had statistically significant higher levels of PVh (p value < 0.001). Conversely, the parents who had finished the initial COVID-19 vaccine had lower PVh levels with statistical significance (p value = 0.001). Attitude towards COVID-19 (AC), attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine (AV), and perceived behavioral control (PC) of the parents negatively influenced PVh with statistical significance, according to the results of the multiple regression analysis (Betas = − 0.307, − 0.123, and − 0.232, respectively). Conclusions COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy was commonly found among Thai parents. The factors of the hesitancy were multifaceted. Different experiences regarding COVID-19 vaccination for themselves and any vaccinations for their children were associated with different PVhs. The attitudes especially AC, AV, and PC statistically influenced PVh. These findings should be exploited for national and local policy planning as well as public campaigns.
Introduction: The Good Pharmacy Practice (GPP) standards in Thailand have been legally implemented for all drugstores since 2014. However, customer satisfaction has not been studied. This research aimed to explore the satisfaction of the customers with the facilities and services received from drugstores under the GPP standards and examine the impact of satisfaction toward each GPP domain on overall satisfaction (OS) and the intention to receive the pharmacy services as the first choice in the case of common and non-serious illnesses (IntR). Methods: This research was a cross-sectional survey study. The Google Forms for data collection was distributed via the online social media between June and August 2021. The satisfaction toward OS, IntR, and the GPP domains; places and equipment (PE), personnel (P), quality control (QC), and pharmacy services (PS) were collected using 5-Likert scales. Descriptive statistics, intra-class correlation, and multiple regression were used in data analysis with statistical significance at p-value<0.05. Results: Three hundred and eighty-eight drugstore’s customers responded to the questionnaires. Most customers rated the OS and the IntR at the highest level. The mean of the OS was 4.4±0.7 and the IntR was 4.6±0.7 points out of five. The OS and the IntR were highly correlated with the ICC of 0.719 (p-value<0.001). The satisfactions toward each GPP criteria were ranged between 3.9±0.9 to 4.6±0.7 indicating high levels of satisfaction. All 4 domains of the GPP standards explained the OS and the IntR with R square at 0.541 and 0.363, respectively. However, only PS and PE impacted the OS and only QC and PS impacted the IntR with statistical significance. Conclusion: Thai customers had high levels of the OS and the IntR toward drugstore facilities and services based on the GPP standards. The PS was the domain that statistically influenced both the OS and the IntR, whereas the PE and the QC also statistically influenced the OS and the IntR, respectively. Since PE was the most weighted domain for current inspection, PS and QC should be more emphasized in future revision of the GPP inspection.
Background Mislabeling of drug allergic histories causes avoidable negative impacts on patients and healthcare system. Although multidisciplinary adverse drug reaction (ADR) services to verify and de-label drug allergic histories have been operated in particular hospitals in Thailand, their performances have not been reported. This research aimed to examine the effectiveness of verification of drug allergic history and de-labeling (VD) services of the physician-led multidisciplinary ADR clinic. Methods This research was a retrospective descriptive study. Medical charts of patients with at least one drug allergic history who received VD services at the multidisciplinary clinic between January 2017 to December 2018, were reviewed. Data on the history of drug allergy, VD services, and results were analyzed and presented using descriptive statistics. Results Seventy patients’ charts were reviewed, and 171 unconfirmed drug allergic histories were identified. 79.53% of the reported reactions involved skin and soft tissues. The most found adverse skin reactions were maculopapular rash, pruritic and erythematous rash, and angioedema. The remaining 20.47% were systemic reactions which included drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), anaphylaxis, and nausea/vomiting was the most prevalent. Antituberculosis, beta-lactam antibiotics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were the most reported suspected drugs. Drug allergic history reviewing by physicians or pharmacists could confirm and de-label for 3 and 20 reactions, respectively. Seven and one reactions were confirmed by enzyme‐linked immunospot assay and patch test, respectively. The provocation tests with the suspected or alternative drug were conducted in 64 reactions. Twelve reactions were confirmed, and 45 reactions were de-labeled. Totally, 65/171 (38.01%) allergic histories were successfully de-labeled, 23/171 (13.45%) were confirmed, and 83/171 (48.53%) were inconclusive. Conclusions More than half of drug allergic histories were successfully confirmed or de-labeled by the multidisciplinary ADR team. The collaborative activities of various healthcare professionals, consisting of physicians, nurse, and pharmacists as presented in the study were effective in VD services and should be implemented in other healthcare settings.
Objectives: Self-reflection has been shown to foster clinical reasoning competencies (CRC). Thus, the SOAP+, which incorporated self-reflection into the SOAP note, has been implemented in community pharmacy clerkship. The aims of this study was to explore the opinion of pharmacy students regarding 1) the confidence in CRC in community pharmacy practice following the SOAP+ writing and 2) the benefits of reflection in SOAP+ writing. Methods: This was a mixed method study, including a questionnaire survey and focus group discussions of 6th year pharmacy students. The self-rating confidence score before SOAP writing, after SOAP writing, and after reflection writing to complete the SOAP+ were compared using repeated measure ANOVA. The data from the focus group discussions was analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Thirty-seven students completed the questionnaire (68.52% response rate). The scores after reflection writing are the highest score with statistically significant difference for every CRC. The perceived benefits of reflection include promoting of self-directed learning, CRC improvement, and improvement of assessment validity. Conclusions: The student confidence regarding CRC in community pharmacy practice were improved through SOAP+ writing, which promotes self-reflection and learning from student experiences.
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.