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.

Background: Inappropriate antibiotic use among outpatients is recognized as the primary driver of antibiotic resistance. A proper understanding of appropriate antibiotic usage and associated factors helps to determine and limit inappropriateness. We aimed to identify the rate of appropriate use of antibiotics and identify factors associated with the inappropriate prescriptions. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional descriptive study in outpatient antibiotic use at a hospital in Can Tho City, Vietnam, from August 1, 2019, to January 31, 2020. Data were extracted from all outpatient prescriptions at the Medical Examination Department and analyzed by SPSS 18 and Chi-squared tests, with 95% confidence intervals. The rationale for antibiotic use was evaluated through antibiotic selection, dose, dosing frequency, dosing time, interactions between antibiotics and other drugs, and general appropriate usage. Results: A total of 420 prescriptions were 51.7% for females, 61.7% with health insurance, and 44.0% for patients with one comorbid condition. The general appropriate antibiotic usage rate was 86.7%. Prescriptions showed that 11.0% and 9.5% had a higher dosing frequency and dose than recommended, respectively; 10.2% had an inappropriate dosing time; 3.1% had drug interactions; and only 1.7% had been prescribed inappropriate antibiotics. The risk of inappropriate antibiotic use increased in patients with comorbidities and antibiotic treatment lasting >7 days (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The study indicated a need for more consideration when prescribing antibiotics to patients with comorbidities or using more than 7 days of treatment.

Background: Long-term adherence is crucial for optimal treatment outcomes in chronic cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), especially throughout the COVID-19 wide-spreading periods, making patients with chronic CVDs vulnerable subjects. Aim: To investigate the relationship between the characteristics, beliefs about prescribed medication, COVID-19 prevention measures, and medication adherence among patients with chronic CVDs. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study of outpatients with chronic CVDs in Southern Vietnam. The specific parts regarding the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaires (BMQ - Specific) and the General Medication Adherence Scale (GMAS) were applied to assess the beliefs about and adherence to medication. The implementation measures to prevent COVID-19 in patients were evaluated according to the 5K message (facemask, disinfection, distance, no gathering, and health declaration) of the Vietnam Ministry of Health. A multivariable logistic regression with the Backward elimination (Wald) method was used to identify the associated factors of medication adherence. Results: A slightly higher score in BMQ-Necessity compared to BMQ-Concerns was observed. A total of 40.7% of patients were recorded as having not adhered to their medications. Patients' behavior was most frequently self-reported by explaining their non-adherence (34.7%). Statistical associations were found between rural living place, unemployment status, no or only one measure(s) of COVID-19 prevention application, and medication adherence. Conclusion: During the COVID-19 spreading stage, patients generally showed a positive belief about medication when they rated the importance of taking it higher than its side effects. The data analysis suggested that rather than patients’ beliefs, the clinicians should consider the patient factors, including living place, employment, and the number of epidemic preventive measures applied for guiding the target patients for improving medication adherence.

The purpose of this study was to determine the medication adherence of outpatients with chronic diseases and the association between both patient attitudes and preventive practices regarding COVID-19 and their medication adherence. We performed a cross-sectional study in Vietnam. Medication adherence was determined using the translated and validated Vietnamese version of the General Medication Adherence Scale (GMAS). Patient attitudes and preventive practices regarding COVID-19 were measured using the 5K message of the Vietnam Ministry of Health (facemasks, disinfection, distance, no gatherings, health declarations). The associations between patient characteristics and medication adherence were determined by multivariable regression. The study included 1852 outpatients, and 57.6% of the patients adhered to their medications. Patients who recognized the pandemic’s obstruction of medical follow-ups (OR = 1.771; 95%CI = 1.461–2.147; p < 0.001), who applied ≥2 preventive methods (OR = 1.422; 95%CI = 1.173–1.725; p = 0.001), who were employed (OR = 1.677; 95%CI = 1.251–2.248; p = 0.001), who were living in urban areas (OR = 1.336; 95%CI = 1.090–1.637; p = 0.005,) who possessed higher education levels (OR = 1.313; 95%CI = 1.059–1.629; p = 0.013), or who had ≤2 comorbidities (OR = 1.293; 95%CI = 1.044–1.600; p = 0.019) were more likely to adhere to their medications. The adherence percentage for outpatients with chronic diseases was quite low during the pandemic. Patients who did not recognize the COVID-19 pandemic’s obstruction of medical follow-ups or who had poor preventive practices were less likely to adhere to medications. Healthcare providers should pay more attention to these groups to achieve desired treatment outcomes.

Objectives We aimed to assess whether a pharmacist-led intervention enhances knowledge, medication adherence and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods We conducted a single-blinded randomized controlled trial in Vietnam. Individuals with T2DM were recruited from a general hospital and randomly allocated to intervention and routine care. The intervention group received routine care plus counselling intervention by a pharmacist, including providing drug information and answering individual patients’ queries relating to T2DM and medications, which had not been done in routine care. We assessed the outcomes: knowledge score as measured by the Diabetes Knowledge Questionnaire, self-reported adherence and fasting blood glucose (FBG) at the 1-month follow-up. Key findings A total of 165 patients (83 intervention, 82 control) completed the study; their mean age was 63.33 years, and 49.1% were males. The baseline characteristics of the patients were similar between the groups. At 1-month follow-up, the pharmacist’s intervention resulted in an improvement in all three outcomes: knowledge score [B = 5.527; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 3.982 to 7.072; P &lt; 0.001], adherence [odds ratio (OR) = 9.813; 95% CI: 2.456 to 39.205; P = 0.001] and attainment of target FBG (OR = 1.979; 95% CI: 1.029 to 3.806; P = 0.041). Conclusions The pharmacist-led intervention enhanced disease knowledge, medication adherence and glycemic control in patients with T2DM. This study provides evidence of the benefits of pharmacist counselling in addition to routine care for T2DM outpatients in a Vietnam population.