Background:Learning styles are cognitive, emotional, and physiological traits, as well as indicators of how learners perceive, interact, and respond to their learning environments. According to Honey-Mumford, learning styles are classified as active, reflexive, theoretical, and pragmatic.Objective:The purpose of this study was to identify the predominant learning styles among pharmacy students at the Federal University of Paraná, Brazil.Methods:An observational, cross-sectional, and descriptive study was conducted using the Honey-Alonso Learning Style Questionnaire. Students in the Bachelor of Pharmacy program were invited to participate in this study. The questionnaire comprised 80 randomized questions, 20 for each of the four learning styles. The maximum possible score was 20 points for each learning style, and cumulative scores indicated the predominant learning styles among the participants. Honey-Mumford (1986) proposed five preference levels for each style (very low, low, moderate, high, and very high), called a general interpretation scale, to avoid student identification with one learning style and ignoring the characteristics of the other styles. Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0.Results:This study included 297 students (70% of all pharmacy students at the time) with a median age of 21 years old. Women comprised 77.1% of participants. The predominant style among pharmacy students at the Federal University of Paraná was the pragmatist, with a median of 14 (high preference). The pragmatist style prevails in people who are able to discover techniques related to their daily learning because such people are curious to discover new strategies and attempt to verify whether the strategies are efficient and valid. Because these people are direct and objective in their actions, pragmatists prefer to focus on practical issues that are validated and on problem situations. There was no statistically significant difference between genders with regard to learning styles.Conclusion:The pragmatist style is the prevailing style among pharmacy students at the Federal University of Paraná. Although students may have a learning preference that preference is not the only manner in which students can learn, neither their preference is the only manner in which students can be taught. Awareness of students’ learning styles can be used to adapt the methodology used by teachers to render the teaching-learning process effective and long lasting. The content taught to students should be presented in different manners because varying teaching methods can develop learning skills in students.

Objective:The purpose of this overview (systematic review of systematic reviews) is to evaluate the impact of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) applied to medication use in the care process.Methods:A search for systematic reviews that address CDSS was performed on Medline following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane recommendations. Terms related to CDSS and systematic reviews were used in combination with Boolean operators and search field tags to build the electronic search strategy. There was no limitation of date or language for inclusion. We included revisions that investigated, as a main or secondary objective, changes in process outcomes. The Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) score was used to evaluate the quality of the studies.Results:The search retrieved 954 articles. Five articles were added through manual search, totaling an initial sample of 959 articles. After screening and reading in full, 44 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. In the medication-use processes where CDSS was used, the most common stages were prescribing (n=38 (86.36%) and administering (n=12 (27.27%)). Most of the systematic reviews demonstrated improvement in the health care process (30/44 – 68.2%). The main positive results were related to improvement of the quality of prescription by the physicians (14/30 – 46.6%) and reduction of errors in prescribing (5/30 - 16.6%). However, the quality of the studies was poor, according to the score used.Conclusion:CDSSs represent a promising technology to optimize the medication-use process, especially related to improvement in the quality of prescriptions and reduction of prescribing errors, although higher quality studies are needed to establish the predictors of success in these systems.

No abstract

OBJECTIVES:This is a randomized controlled trial that aims to evaluate the impact of pharmacist-led discharge counseling on reducing pharmacotherapy problems in the 30-day postdischarge period of cardiology patients from a tertiary hospital in Brazil.METHODS:At discharge, two cardiovascular pharmacy residents performed a medication counseling session with the intervention group, and the follow-up was performed by telephone (3 and 15 days after discharge). The number of pharmacotherapy problems was evaluated during a pharmacist-led ambulatory consultation 30 days after discharge.RESULTS:A total of 66 and 67 patients were randomized to the intervention and control groups, respectively, but only 51 patients were analyzed in each group, all with similar baseline characteristics. The intervention group had significantly fewer pharmacotherapy problems compared to the control (p<0.001), and 100% of the patients had at least one problem. We observed five problems significantly more frequently in the control group: “incorrect time of taking” (p=0.003), “use higher dose of medication” (p=0.007), “use lower dose of medication” (p=0.014), “restart discontinued medication” (p=0.011), and “underdosing prescription” (p=0.009). Simvastatin, enalapril, carvedilol, and atorvastatin were the medications more associated with pharmacotherapy problems.CONCLUSIONS:We concluded that pharmacist-led discharge counseling should be an indispensable service, as patients exhibited less pharmacotherapy problems in the 30-day postdischarge period, especially related to drug administration and adherence.

O presente trabalho realizou um levantamento da prevalência da Síndrome de Burnout (SB) em profissionais de saúde, que estiveram na linha de frente do enfrentamento da pandemia de COVID-19. O processo metodológico seguiu as recomendações PRISMA e COCHRANE e as etapas de triagem, elegibilidade e extração de dados foram realizadas por revisores independentes, em planilhas padronizadas. Após esse processo, 26 estudos transversais foram incluídos. Os principais desfechos encontrados corroboram para a variação dos escores médios nas três dimensões do burnout de acordo com a área profissional, local e público acometido. A maioria dos estudos apontaram os profissionais da enfermagem como as populações mais afetadas e com maior prevalência de escores compatíveis nas três dimensões da SB, sendo o público do sexo feminino até 60% mais acometido que o masculino. Esses dados permitem inferir que medidas mais eficazes precisam ser tomadas em relação ao bem-estar mental desses profissionais. Medidas relacionadas com a infraestrutura, condições de trabalho e suporte psicoterapêutico estão entre as principais indicações como prevenção para o esgotamento físico e emocional.