Background Drug dispensing aims to promote rational medicine use. However, in many countries, the work processes are still not well defined. In this sense, the perception of pharmacists about dispensing practices presents an overview of how the service is being performed in the country and its main challenges. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine the self-reported work process of Brazilian community pharmacists in relation to drug dispensing, challenges, and strategies for carrying out the service. Method A cross-sectional survey was conducted between May and July 2021, with community pharmacists from all regions of Brazil. Pharmacists were invited to answer a validated, self-administered questionnaire, implemented through Google Forms, containing 33 questions related to the steps of drug dispensing (questions and counseling) and the main challenges and strategies to perform the service. The data were exported to Microsoft Office Excel and SPSS®. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to assess the association between responses and demographic information, with a significance level of less than 5% (p < 0.05). This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee (number: 4.295.171). Results A total of 625 community pharmacists responded to the survey. Most pharmacists reported always or frequently performing 17 (54%) of the 31 steps described in the instrument. The steps that pharmacists reported performing more frequently were forming the medication name (n = 569, 91.04%), verifying the completeness and adequacy of the prescription according to current legislation (n = 567, 90.72%) and providing counseling on dosage (n = 549, 87.84%). Documentation was the main step in which pharmacists reported never or rarely performing (n = 424, 67.84%). The results showed that there was a significant influence of the variables of public education institution, age, and postgraduate education on the frequency of dispensing steps (F(3, 621) = 14.884, p < 0.001; R2ajdusted = 0,063). Conclusion This study showed that most pharmacists reported always or frequently asking most of the questions and performing counseling contained in the instrument during drug dispensing. These results can contribute to an understanding of current dispensing practices and generate insights for developing strategies to qualify the service.

Objective. To determine the levels of communication apprehension (CA) experienced by health students and compare them according to sex, age range, course, and academic year. Method. A cross-sectional study was conducted at a Brazilian university from December 2019 to May 2020 with dentistry, pharmacy, medicine, and nursing students, recruited by convenience sampling. The students were invited to answer a survey consisting of two sections: general characteristic and the Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24). Univariate and bivariate analyses were conducted. Results. A total of 644 health students answered the survey, of whom 25.5% were classified as having high communication apprehension. Male participants had significantly lower PRCA-24 scores than females. No significant differences were found between PRCA-24 scores by age category or academic year. Medical students had significantly lower mean PRCA-24 scores than pharmacy students. Conclusion.The prevalence of high CA was high and apparently remained stable over time. The highest scores for CA were obtained by women and pharmacy students. Health educators should consider the effects of communication apprehension and use adequate interventions during communication skills training.

Background The indiscriminate use of antimicrobials is considered a major contributing factor to the increase in antimicrobial resistance. Community pharmacies are the main source of access to antimicrobials, and pharmacists are in a strategic position to promote rational use of these medicines. Therefore, it is important to know dispensing service quality. Objective To evaluate the behavior of pharmacists in dispensing antimicrobials in community pharmacies in northeast Brazil. Methods This cross-sectional pilot study was conducted from August to October 2021 in a private community pharmacy chain in Sergipe. Dispensing was evaluated using the simulated patient (SP) technique. Two SP asked the pharmacists for the antimicrobials (case clinic 1: upper respiratory infection; case clinic 2: urinary tract infection) and recorded the service through audio. Dispensing practices were independently analyzed by two researchers based on the tools available in the literature. Data were presented using descriptive statistics. Results A total of 54 simulated patient visits were conducted. Based on the 12 steps recommended by the research team for good dispensing, pharmacists asked an average of 1 (±1.17) question for upper respiratory infections and 0.3 (±0.54) for urinary tract infections, as well as provided counseling (mean number of recommendations, 2.6 (±1.44) and 4.5 (±2.35), respectively). As for communication skills, pharmacists had a regular score (3.07 ± 0.34). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the number of steps and counseling recommendations by pharmacists in dispensing clinical cases 1 and 2 (p = 0.0674). Conclusion The quality of antimicrobial dispensing was evaluated as suboptimal, requiring improvements in practice and multifaceted strategies to promote continuing education of these professionals. In addition, awareness actions for the population must be implemented to promote the rational use of antimicrobials and reduce microbial resistance.

Background Antimicrobial resistance remains a major global public health concern, and antimicrobial dispensing in community pharmacies is an important factor in preventing this damage. However, the current literature focuses on the technical and attitudinal aspects related to antimicrobial dispensing, with little emphasis on the interventions provided in this service. Thus, this study aimed to determine the antimicrobial dispensing process in community pharmacies. Methods A scoping review was performed in September 2020 using the PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. The search terms included words related to dispensing, antibacterial agents, and pharmacies in various combinations. Two reviewers screened the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles according to the eligibility criteria, and extracted the data. The findings were presented in a descriptive form. Results Of the 7713 studies screened, 35 were included, of which 22 (63%) were published in Asia. Most studies followed a cross-sectional design (n = 27), and the simulated patient was the most often used method to assess the antimicrobial dispensing process (n = 22). Moreover, 31 (89%) studies investigated antimicrobial dispensing without prescription, and only four (11%) studies evaluated antimicrobial dispensing with prescription. In the 35 studies, the most frequently asked questions were about drug allergies (n = 19) and patient symptoms (n = 18), and counseling mainly focused on the side effects (n = 14), precautions (n = 14), how to take the medication (n = 12), and duration of medication use (n = 11). Another common intervention was referral (n = 15). Among clinical cases, counseling on medication use occurred often in cases of urinary tract infection (51%) and otitis media (50%). Conclusions Antimicrobial dispensing processes have been primarily investigated in low- and middle-income countries, with a focus on dispensing antimicrobials without prescriptions. During the dispensing process, pharmacists mostly posed minimal questions and counseling, highlighting the deficiencies that persist in this practice. Our results indicate the need for multifaceted strategies, such as implementing educational, regulatory or administrative strategies and changes in cultural background, especially in low- and middle-income countries, that aim to reduce indiscriminate use of antimicrobials. Therefore, qualifying the antimicrobial dispensing process is a fundamental factor for improving the rational use of antimicrobials and reducing microbial resistance. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13756-022-01157-0.

No abstract