Knowledge, Awareness and Attitude of Pharmacists toward Pharmacogenetic Practice: Perspective of Community and Hospital in Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Received: 16-Nov-2017 / Accepted Date: 22-Nov-2017 / Published Date: 27-Nov-2017 DOI: 10.4172/2161-0711.1000568
Abstract
Objectives: This study is aimed; to assess the knowledge, awareness and attitude of pharmacists in the community and hospital settings towards pharmacogenetic, to understand the differences of knowledge, awareness and attitude between community and hospital settings and to understand the factors predict the knowledge, awareness and attitude of the pharmacists.
Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study over 60 community pharmacies and 11 clinics and hospital pharmacies. We recruited 84 hospital pharmacists in the private hospitals and 24 community pharmacists. The questionnaire about knowledge, awareness and attitude of pharmacists towards pharmacogenetic were adopted from previous study. We also collected the data of demographic by interviewing the respondents.
Results: Our study finds the significant differences of attitude between community and hospital pharmacists. The scores of knowledge, awareness and attitude in community setting are higher than the score of those in hospital settings. In the hospital setting, only education and CPD which may predict the awareness of pharmacists. In the community setting, characteristics which may predict the knowledge, awareness and attitude are outpatient services, work duration and CPD, respectively (p<0.05).
Conclusion: The knowledge and awareness of pharmacists toward pharmacogenetic in Yogyakarta are good. Pharmacists’ characteristics that may predict the knowledge, awareness and attitude toward pharmacogenetic are education, internal CPD, work duration, and types of patient’s service.
Keywords: Perception; Knowledge; Attitude; Pharmacists; Pharmacogenetic
Introduction
Drug-response variability could be influenced by many factors which are derived from the patients, disease and drug itself [1,2]. Many studies presented that genetic variation could be used as predictor of drug-response variability predictor [3-6]. Food and Drug Administration started to introduce pharmacogenetic test results in the health care practice by giving the warning box in the drug packaging [7]. The drug-response variability together with the patients’ characteristic became the consideration in making the decision for patients’ treatment. The variability of drug response may cause the decrease of drug effectivity or the increase of adverse reaction [8]. Thus, the pharmacists’ role in personalized medicine is needed to improve the treatment outcomes [9].
The previous study in Australia presented that the community pharmacists had poor understanding about pharmacogenetic and did not believe about their capability in counsel the patients about pharmacogenetic test results [10]. Another previous study in USA in 580 community pharmacists showed that around 87% community pharmacists had positive attitude toward pharmacogenetic test and around 57% realized their role in giving counseling to the patients about pharmacogenetic [11]. Moreover, in Qatar, the study about awareness and attitude towards pharmacogenetic was conducted among the pharmacists and doctors. This previous study found that the awareness of pharmacists and doctors were low (less than 50%) and there was no significant difference between pharmacist and doctor. However, pharmacist had more positive attitude in applying the pharmacogenetic in their daily practice than doctor [12]. In Japanese population, only around 61% patients realize the importance of pharmacogenetic testing results in predicting the drug efficacious [13].
This study is aimed to understand the knowledge, awareness and attitude of pharmacists in the community and hospital settings towards pharmacogenetic. Secondly, we want to understand the factors associated to the knowledge, awareness and attitude of the pharmacists and thirdly, to understand the differences of knowledge, awareness and attitude between community and hospital pharmacists. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study conducted in Indonesia about the knowledge, awareness and attitude of pharmacist towards pharmacogenetic.
Method
We conducted cross-sectional study in 60 community pharmacies and 11 clinics and hospital pharmacies. We recruited 84 hospital pharmacists in the private hospitals and 24 community pharmacists. We used the questionnaire about knowledge, awareness and attitude of pharmacists towards pharmacogenetic from the previous study [11,13]. We translated the questionnaire into Bahasa Indonesia version at the Center of Language Practices Universitas Ahmad Dahlan. We conducted the validation procedures in the 51 respondents and found that the questionnaires met the reliability criteria, discriminant and convergent validities. We also collect the data of demographic by interviewing the respondents. Data was analyzed using Student-T test or Mann Whitney test to understand demographic factors associated with knowledge, awareness and attitude of the pharmacists and to understand the differences of knowledge, awareness and attitude between community and hospital pharmacists. This study has been approved by Ethic Committee of Universitas Ahmad Dahlan No 011601010.
Results
Our study presented factors predicted the knowledge, awareness and attitude of pharmacists towards pharmacogenetic in hospital and community settings. Furthermore, we also presented the significant differences of knowledge and attitude towards pharmacogenetic between community and hospital pharmacists. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the pharmacists in hospital and community. In general, the mean age of the pharmacists, the mean year working as pharmacists in the community and hospital settings are similar. However, the pharmacists’ work hours/day in the patients’ service of hospital setting are less than the work hours of community setting. Most of pharmacists are female, graduated as pharmacist and graduated as pharmacist before 2013 in both settings. The proportion of facilities such as pharmaceutical bulletin is limited (less than 10%) in both settings. However, the internet access is good (more than 75%) in both setting. The self-development efforts are good (more than 75%) in both settings, except for the proportion of internal Continuing Professional Development (CPD) in hospital setting. The proportion of other languages proficiency is better in the community setting than in the hospital setting. Table 2 presents the differences of attitude towards pharmacogenetic between community and hospital setting. There are significant differences of knowledge and attitude between community and hospital pharmacists. The scores of knowledge, awareness and attitude in community setting are higher than the score of hospital settings.
Characteristics (Total=106 respondents) | Community | Hospital | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
N=84 (%) | Mean ± SD | N=24 (%) | Mean ± SD | |
Age | - | 32.51 ± 7.19 | - | 31.04 ± 6.80 |
Work as pharmacist (year) | - | 5.17 ± 5.91 | - | 5.79 ± 6.17 |
Outpatient service (hour/day) | - | 4.10 ± 2.18 | - | 2.34 ± 2.47 |
Inpatient service (hour/day) | - | 4.98 ± 2.16 | - | 2.04 ± 2.16 |
Sex | ||||
Male | 4 (4.9) | - | 5 (20.8) | - |
Female | 78 (95.1) | - | 19 (79.2) | - |
Education | ||||
Pharmacy degree | 78 (95.1) | - | 21 (87.5) | - |
Master degree | 4 (4.9) | - | 3 (12.5) | - |
Year of graduation | ||||
≤ 2013 | 71 (86.6) | - | 18 (75.0) | - |
>2013 | 11 (13.4) | - | 6 (25.0) | - |
Internal CPD | ||||
Yes | 64 (78.0) | - | 12 (50.0) | - |
No | 18 (22.0) | - | 12 (50.0) | - |
Training/Seminar | ||||
Yes | 75 (91.5) | - | 24 (100.0) | - |
No | 7 (8.5) | - | 0 (0.0) | - |
Pharmaceutical Bulletin subscription | ||||
Yes | 7 (8.5) | - | 2 (8.3) | - |
No | 75 (91.5) | - | 22 (91.7) | - |
Internet Access | ||||
Yes | 72 (87.8) | - | 22 (91.7) | - |
No | 10 (12.2) | - | 2 (8.3) | - |
continuing professionals development | ||||
Yes | 75 (91.5) | - | 23 (95.8) | - |
No | 7 (8.5) | - | 1 (4.2) | - |
Other language proficiency | ||||
Yes | 39 (47.6) | - | 9 (37.5) | - |
No | 43 (52.4) | - | 15 (62.5) | - |
Table 1: Pharmacist’ characteristics.
Characteristics | Community | Hospital | p-value |
---|---|---|---|
Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||
Knowledge | 15.28 ± 1.687 | 14.42 ± 2.32 | 0.078 |
Awareness | 5.77 ± 0.865 | 5.50 ± 0.933 | 0.338 |
Attitude | 26.22 ± 2.172 | 24.29 ± 3.47 | <0.05* |
*: significant different |
Table 2: Differences of knowledge, awareness and attitude between community and hospital settings.
Tables 3-5 lists the results of distribution of the pharmacists’ answer in every item of questions. In every domain, most of the scores in each questions are significant different between community and hospital settings. It shows that majority of answer choices are significant different between community and hospital pharmacists. Tables 6 and 7 present the characteristics which may predict the knowledge, awareness and attitude of the pharmacists in the community and hospital settings. In the hospital setting, only education and CPD which may predict the awareness of pharmacist toward Pharmacogenetic. In the community setting, characteristics which may predict the knowledge, awareness attitude are CPD, work duration and CPD, respectively (p<0.05). Pharmacists who attended the CPD had higher knowledge than pharmacists who did not attend the CPD. Pharmacists who have been worked for less than 5 years have higher awareness than the pharmacists with more than 5 years of work duration. Subsequently, in the outpatient setting, pharmacists who work less than 3 hours had less attitude than pharmacists who work more than 3 hours.
Questions | Community Pharmacist | Hospital Pharmacists | p value |
---|---|---|---|
Slight differences of genom may influence drug response | |||
Scale 1 | 7 | 2 | 0.096 |
Scale 2 | 75 | 22 | <0.01* |
Genetic variance can change along with the life cycle | |||
Scale 1 | 39 | 15 | <0.01* |
Scale 2 | 43 | 9 | <0.01* |
Genetic variance change 95% variations of drug abuse and misuse | |||
Scale 1 | 16 | 2 | <0.01* |
Scale 2 | 66 | 22 | <0.01* |
Warfarin packaging information | |||
Scale 1 | 14 | 10 | 0.414 |
Scale 2 | 68 | 14 | <0.01* |
Pharmacogenetic test for diagnostic | |||
Scale 1 | 35 | 7 | <0.01* |
Scale 2 | 47 | 17 | <0.01* |
Drug identification for pharmacogenetic test | |||
Scale 1 | 8 | 6 | 0.593 |
Scale 2 | 42 | 14 | <0.01* |
Scale 3 | 32 | 4 | <0.01* |
Discussion woth other healthcare | |||
Scale 1 | 9 | 5 | 0.285 |
Scale 2 | 60 | 12 | <0.01* |
Scale 3 | 13 | 7 | <0.01* |
Pharmacy education | |||
Scale 1 | 13 | 8 | 0.275 |
Scale 2 | 32 | 10 | <0.01* |
Scale 3 | 37 | 6 | <0.01* |
Total Score | |||
≤ 15 | 43 | 16 | <0.01* |
>15 | 39 | 8 | <0.01* |
Table 3: Distribution of pharmacists’ answers in every questions of knowledge.
Questions | Community Pharmacist | Hospital Pharmacists | p value |
---|---|---|---|
Ethical guideline for genetic research | |||
Scale 1 | 73 | 22 | <0.01* |
Scale 2 | 9 | 2 | <0.05* |
Terminology of pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomics | |||
Scale 1 | 3 | 4 | 0.705 |
Scale 2 | 79 | 20 | <0.01* |
Pharmacogenetic test covered by insurance | |||
Scale 1 | 69 | 19 | <0.01* |
Scale 2 | 13 | 5 | 0.059 |
Possible questions related to Pharmacogenetic to patients | |||
Scale 1 | 38 | 15 | <0.01* |
Scale 2 | 42 | 9 | <0.01* |
Total Score | |||
≤ 5 | 34 | 11 | <0.01* |
>5 | 48 | 13 | <0.01* |
Table 4: Distribution of pharmacists’ answers in every questions of awareness.
Questions | Community Pharmacist | Hospital Pharmacists | p value |
---|---|---|---|
Pharmacogenetic test secrease the adverse effect | |||
Scale 1 | 0 | 0 | - |
Scale 2 | 2 | 4 | 0.414 |
Scale 3 | 80 | 20 | 0.000* |
Pharmacogenetic test optimize the drug dose | |||
Scale 1 | 2 | 0 | - |
Scale 2 | 6 | 4 | 0.527 |
Scale 3 | 74 | 20 | 0.000* |
Pharmacogenetic test increase drug efficacy | |||
Scale 1 | 3 | 1 | 0.317 |
Scale 2 | 19 | 7 | 0.019* |
Scale 3 | 60 | 16 | 0.000* |
Relevance of pharmacogenetic with daily practice | |||
Scale 1 | 13 | 8 | 0.275 |
Scale 2 | 46 | 12 | 0.000* |
Scale 3 | 23 | 4 | 0.000* |
Priority of Pharmacogenetic learning | |||
Scale 1 | 7 | 5 | 0.564 |
Scale 2 | 46 | 14 | 0.000* |
Scale 3 | 29 | 5 | 0.000* |
Pharmacogenetic counseling | |||
Scale 1 | 0 | 2 | - |
Scale 2 | 16 | 8 | 0.102 |
Scale 3 | 66 | 14 | 0.000* |
Access of pharmacogenetic information | |||
Scale 1 | 7 | 7 | 1.000 |
Scale 2 | 27 | 9 | 0.003* |
Scale 3 | 48 | 8 | 0.000* |
Computerization as tool for drug-gene interaction checker | |||
Scale 1 | 3 | 1 | 0.317 |
Scale 2 | 28 | 8 | 0.001* |
Scale 3 | 51 | 15 | 0.000* |
Patients’ counseling about pharmacogenetic | |||
Scale 1 | 4 | 6 | 0.527 |
Scale 2 | 39 | 9 | 0.000* |
Scale 3 | 39 | 9 | 0.000* |
Drug allergy as patient’s history | |||
Scale 1 | 0 | 0 | - |
Scale 2 | 0 | 2 | - |
Scale 3 | 82 | 22 | 0.000* |
Total Score S | |||
≤ 26 | 46 | 16 | 0.001* |
>26 | 36 | 8 | 0.000* |
Table 5: Distribution of pharmacists’ answers in every questions of Attitude.
Characteristics | Domains | ||
---|---|---|---|
Knowledge | Awareness | Attitude | |
Age (n) | |||
≤30 yo (14) | 14.50 ± 2.653 | 5.29 ± 0.726 | 24.36 ± 3.671 |
>30 yo (10) | 14.30 ± 1.889 | 5.80 ± 1.135 | 24.20 ± 3.360 |
p value | 0.859 | 0.155 | 0.883 |
Sex (N) | |||
Female (19) | 14.00 ± 2.739 | 5.20 ± 0.837 | 23.20 ± 3.564 |
Male (5) | 14.53 ± 2.270 | 5.58 ± 0.961 | 24.58 ± 3.485 |
p value | 0.640 | 0.409 | 0.391 |
Education (N) | |||
Pharmacy degree (21) | 14.38 ± 2.459 | 5.33 ± 0,.856 | 24.38 ± 3.626 |
Master degree (S2) (3) | 14.67 ± 1.155 | 6.67 ± 0.577 | 23.67 ± 2.517 |
p value | 0.895 | 0.021* | 0.759 |
Work duration (N) | |||
≤5 years (16) | 14.69 ± 2.549 | 5.44 ± 0.814 | 24.62 ± 3.722 |
>5 years (8) | 13.88 ± 1.808 | 5.62 ± 1.188 | 23.62 ± 3.021 |
p value | 0.403 | 0.583 | 0.498 |
Outpatient service (N) | |||
≤3 hours/day (18) | 14.39 ± 2.253 | 5.56 ± 0.922 | 24.61 ± 3.760 |
>3 hours/day (6) | 14.50 ± 2.739 | 5.33 ± 1.033 | 23.33 ± 2.422 |
p value | 0.919 | 0.527 | 0.384 |
Inpatient service (N) | |||
≤3 hours/day (19) | 14.58 ± 2.545 | 5.53 ± 0.964 | 24.16 ± 3.236 |
>3 hours/day (5) | 13.80 ± 1.095 | 5.40 ± 0.894 | 24.80 ± 4.658 |
p value | 0.429 | 0.851 | 0.642 |
Year of graduation (N) | |||
≤ 2013 (18) | 14.17 ± 2.358 | 5.61 ± 0.979 | 24.22 ± 3.490 |
>2013 (6) | 15.17 ± 2.229 | 5.17 ± 0.753 | 24.50 ± 3.728 |
p value | 0.399 | 0.275 | 0.789 |
Internal CPD (N) | |||
Yes (12) | 14.08 ± 2.483 | 5.00 ± 0.853 | 24.50 ± 3.826 |
No (12) | 14.75 ± 1.712 | 6.00 ± 0.739 | 24.08 ± 3.232 |
p value | 0.599 | 0.010* | 0.816 |
Pharmaceutical Bulletin subscription (N) | |||
No (22) | 14.36 ± 2.401 | 5.41 ± 0.908 | 24.00 ± 3.450 |
Yes (2) | 15.00 ± 1.414 | 6.50 ± 0.707 | 27.50 ± 2.121 |
p value | 0.711 | 0.110 | 0.172 |
Internet access (N) | |||
No (2) | 13.50 ± 2.121 | 4.50 ± 0.707 | 22.50 ± 0.707 |
Yes (22) | 14.50 ± 2.365 | 5.59 ± 0.908 | 24.45 ± 3.582 |
p value | 0.597 | 0.110 | 0.372 |
CPD (N) | |||
No (1) | 11.00 ± 0.000 | 4.00 ± 0.000 | 20.00 ± 0.000 |
Yes (23) | 14.57 ± 2.253 | 5.57 ± 0.896 | 24.48 ± 3.423 |
p value | 0.144 | 0.127 | 0.191 |
Other languages proficiency (N) | |||
No (15) | 13.53 ± 2.134 | 5.20 ± 0.862 | 23.87 ± 3.378 |
Yes (9) | 15.89 ± 1.900 | 6.00 ± 0.866 | 25.00 ± 3.708 |
p value | 0.026 | 0.059 | 0.402 |
Table 6: Pharmacists’ characteristics which are related to knowledge, awareness and attitude in the hospital setting (n=24).
Characteristics | Domains | ||
---|---|---|---|
Knowledge | Awareness | Attitude | |
Age (N) | |||
≤30 yo (38) | 15.58 ± 1.426 | 5.89 ± 0.863 | 25.71 ± 2.312 |
>30 yo (44) | 15.02 ± 1.861 | 5.66 ± 0.861 | 26.66 ± 1.964 |
p value | 0.206 | 0.249 | 0.070 |
Sex (N) | |||
Male (4) | 15.75 ± 0.500 | 5.75 ± 1.500 | 26.00 ± 0.816 |
Female (78) | 15.26 ± 1.724 | 5.77 ± 0.836 | 26.23 ± 2.221 |
p value | 0.538 | 0.487 | 0.761 |
Education (N) | |||
Pharmacist (78) | 15.28 ± 1.658 | 5.73 ± 0.832 | 26.18 ± 2.161 |
Master (4) | 15.25 ± 2.500 | 6.50 ± 1.291 | 27.00 ± 2.582 |
p value | 0.956 | 0.171 | 0.521 |
Work Duration (N) | |||
≤ 5 years (53) | 15.47 ± 1.475 | 5.91 ± 0.815 | 26.11 ± 2.399 |
>5 years (29) | 14.93 ± 1.999 | 5.52 ± 0.911 | 26.41 ± 1.701 |
p value | 0.228 | 0.033* | 0.614 |
Outpatient service (N) | |||
≤ 3 hours/day (40) | 15.30 ± 1.924 | 5.72 ± 0.905 | 25.50 ± 2.100 |
>3 hours/day (42) | 15.26 ± 1.449 | 5.81 ± 0.833 | 26.90 ± 2.034 |
p value | 0.556 | 0.506 | 0.002* |
Inpatient service (N) | |||
≤3 hours/day (25) | 14.92 ± 2.060 | 5.64 ± 1.036 | 25.76 ± 2.026 |
>3 hours/day (57) | 15.44 ± 1.488 | 5.82 ± 0.782 | 26.42 ± 2.220 |
p value | 0.410 | 0.250 | 0.117 |
Year of graduation (N) | |||
≤ 2013 (71) | 15.32 ± 1.763 | 5.70 ± 0.868 | 26.31 ± 2.033 |
>2013 (11) | 15.00 ± 1.095 | 6.18 ± 0.751 | 25.64 ± 2.976 |
p value | 0.408 | 0.052 | 0.625 |
Internal CPD (N) | |||
No (18) | 15.44 ± 1.617 | 5.61 ± 0.916 | 26.39 ± 2.004 |
Yes (64) | 15.23 ± 1.716 | 5.81 ± 0.852 | 26.17 ± 2.229 |
p value | 0.761 | 0.340 | 0.847 |
Training / Seminar (N) | |||
No (7) | 15.00 ± 1.000 | 5.71 ± 0.951 | 24.86 ± 3.716 |
Yes (75) | 15.31 ± 1.740 | 5.77 ± 0.863 | 26.35 ± 1.962 |
p value | 0.455 | 0.768 | 0.298 |
Pharmaceutical Bulletin subscription (N) | |||
No (75) | 15.29 ± 1.738 | 5.76 ± 0.883 | 26.24 ± 2.186 |
Yes (7) | 15.14 ± 1.069 | 5.86 ± 0.690 | 26.00 ± 2.160 |
p value | 0.709 | 0.610 | 0.900 |
Internet access (N) | |||
No (10) | 15.30 ± 1.160 | 5.80 ± 0.919 | 26.10 ± 2.923 |
Yes (72) | 15.28 ± 1.754 | 5.76 ± 0.864 | 26.24 ± 2.073 |
p value | 0.942 | 0.994 | 0.813 |
CPD (N) | |||
No (7) | 14.00 ± 1.633 | 5.57 ± 0.976 | 25.57 ± 2.637 |
Yes (75) | 15.40 ± 1.652 | 5.79 ± 0.859 | 26.28 ± 2.134 |
p value | 0.035* | 0.694 | 0.426 |
Other languages proficiency (N) | |||
No (43) | 15.16 ± 1.689 | 5.65 ± 0.923 | 25.98 ± 2.076 |
Yes (39) | 15.41 ± 1.697 | 5.90 ± 0.788 | 26.49 ± 2.270 |
p value | 0.465 | 0.127 | 0.270 |
Table 7: Pharmacist’ characteristics which are related to knowledge, awareness and attitude in the community setting (n=82).
Discussion
Our study presents the knowledge, awareness and attitude of pharmacists in Yogyakarta, Indonesia with the new perspectives of community and hospital settings. Indonesia is developed country with around 360 tribes which has big chance for drug-response variations based on genetics. As we know that pharmacists who work in the hospital in Indonesia also have managerial jobs which became the obstacle in conducting the counseling to the patients. The human resources are also limited in the hospital to improve the pharmaceutical care service. Factors which could predict the knowledge, awareness and attitude of the pharmacists are being explored in this study. We show the choices differences in every question between community and hospital pharmacist.
The score of attitude of community pharmacists is significantly higher than hospital pharmacists. According to the characteristics of the pharmacists, the community pharmacists had more chance in doing internal CPD. They also had more time to give inpatient and outpatient services than the hospital pharmacists. Other characteristics of self-development are better in the hospital setting than community setting. This could be caused by the load of administrative and managerial jobs that should be done in the hospital setting in Indonesia. The previous study in Qatar also presented the similar results that the awareness of hospital pharmacists toward Pharmacogenetic is low although they had positive attitude in the implication [12]. However, the previous study in Jordan also presented low pharmacists’ knowledge and positive attitude about Pharmacogenetic in the city [14].
Pharmacogenetic has been started in Indonesia Pharmacy education since 2013. Currently this course is available in the theory and still have many obstacles to be conducted during the course and in the clinical practice, thus the implication is still far from the theory. The cost of Pharmacogenetic test is also became the issue in the health provider setting.
Education and internal CPD are factors that related to the pharmacists’ awareness in the hospital setting. This could be caused by the curriculum of education level in the pharmacy program. The curriculum of Pharmacy program is arranged for the practice skill of pharmacists in the community pharmacy. However, in the master degree of pharmacy, the curriculum is composed based on the science development, including Pharmacogenetic. The previous study presented that only small proportion of pharmacists stated that the knowledge about Pharmacogenetic was derived from the faculty. Majority of them stated that the Pharmacogenetic knowledge was derived from the seminar [10]. Moreover, bulletin and seminar subscription also enhanced their pharmacogenetic knowledge [15]. In the community setting, the internal CPD also may predict the pharmacists’ knowledge and the outpatient’s service hour could predict pharmacist’ attitude. Previous study stated that some characteristics like sex, age, level of education type of service and the intensity of CPD [16-18]. Roeder et al. showed that pharmacists with Pharm D degree had better knowledge than the lower degree [17]. Pharmacist who worked in the community or hospital less than 5 years had good interests in pharmacogenetic than pharmacists who work more than 5 years [16]. Previous study in Australia also showed that new graduates of pharmacists had good knowledge than pharmacists who has been worked for many years [10]. Pharmacists who worked in the inpatient setting had better attitude to pharmacogenetic than pharmacists who worked in the outpatient setting. This could be caused by the intensity of pharmacist-patient-other health care’s interaction in the inpatients setting, thus, the discussion about treatment effectivity could be more intensive.
According to the opened-ended questions, most of the pharmacists (66.7%) are willing to do the counseling related to the pharmacogenetic test results, however, due to the limited knowledge they stated that they need more time to learn about pharmacogenetics (33%). Around 33.3% stated that the databases of pharmacogenetic in Indonesia are still rare.
I general, our study finds that the pharmacists both in community and hospital setting has good theoretical knowledge and high awareness that implied the willingness of the pharmacists to applicate the pharmacogenetic test in the clinical practice. Our study findings are in line with some previous studies that presented the good knowledge and awareness, but negative attitude [19-21]. However, some constraints are presence in the clinical practice of pharmacogenetic, such as; limited technical knowledge, the uncommon topic of pharmacogenetic during the CPD, the high cost of pharmacogenetic course, the high load of managerial jobs and the limited pharmacist-patient- other health care interaction. Our study has limited sample size of hospital pharmacists, even though we recruited all hospital pharmacists in the particular private hospital and clinics.
Conclusion
The knowledge and awareness of hospital and community pharmacists about pharmacogenetic in Yogyakarta are good. However, there are some constraints which became the reasons for the limited attitude about pharmacogenetic; Pharmacists’ characteristics that may predict the knowledge, awareness and attitude toward pharmacogenetic are education, internal CPD, work duration, and types of patient’s service.
Acknowledgement
The authors thank to the Private Hospital and Clinics Directors and staff’s during the observation of study.
References
- Ahmed S, Zhou Z, Zhou J, Chen SQ (2016) Pharmacogenomics of drug metabolizing enzymes and transporters: Relevance to precision medicine. Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics 14: 298-313.
- Akhondzadeh S (2014) Personalized medicine: A tailor made medicine. Avicenna J Med Biotechnol 6: 191.
- Kiyotani K, Mushiroda T, Imamura CK, Tanigawara Y, Hosono N, et al. (2012) Dose-adjustment study of tamoxifen based on CYP2D6 genotypes in Japanese breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 131: 137-145.
- Lee S, Kim BH, Nam WS, Yoon SH, Cho JY, et al. (2012) Effect of CYP2C19 polymorphism on the pharmacokinetics of voriconazole after single and multiple doses in healthy volunteers. J Clin Pharmacol 52: 195-203.
- Mega JL, Close SL, Wiviott SD, Shen L, Hockett RD, et al. (2009) Cytochrome p-450 polymorphisms and response to clopidogrel. N Engl J Med 360: 354-362.
- Stamer UM, Musshoff F, Kobilay M, Madea B, Hoeft A, et al. (2007) Concentrations of tramadol and O-desmethyltramadol enantiomers in different CYP2D6 genotypes. Clin Pharmacol Ther 82: 41-47.
- Shin J, Kayser SR, Langaee TY (2009) Pharmacogenetics: From discovery to patient care. Am J Health Syst Pharm 66: 625-637.
- Kaldy J (2011) Personalized medicine: Genetic component to providing quality care. Consult Pharm 26: 618-627.
- Owusu-Obeng A, Weitzel KW, Hatton RC, Staley BJ, Ashton J, et al. (2014) Emerging roles for pharmacists in clinical implementation of pharmacogenomics. Pharmacotherapy 34:1102-1112.
- McMahon T, Tucci J (2011) The perceptions of pharmacists in Victoria, Australia on pharmacogenetics and its implications. Pharm Pract 9: 141-147.
- Tuteja S, Haynes K, Zayac C, Sprague JE, Bernhardt B, et al. (2013) Community pharmacists' attitudes towards clinical utility and ethical implications of pharmacogenetic testing. Per Med 10.
- Elewa H, Alkhiyami D, Alsahan D, Abdel-Aziz A (2015) A survey on the awareness and attitude of pharmacists and doctors towards the application of pharmacogenomics and its challenges in Qatar. J Eval Clin Pract 21: 703-709.
- Obara T, Abe S, Satoh M, Gutierrez Ubeda SR, Yoshimachi S, et al. (2015) Awareness regarding clinical application of pharmacogenetics among Japanese pharmacists. Pharmgenomics Pers Med 8: 35-41.
- AlEjielat R, Ejielat Z, Andrawes S, Mhaidat NM (2016) An evaluation of the knowledge, opinions, expectations and concerns toward pharmacogenomics among Jordanian pharmacists. Persona Med 13: 143-154.
- Kudzi W, Adjei GO, Ofori-Adjei D, Dodoo AN (2011) Pharmacogenetics in Ghana: Reviewing the evidence. Ghana Med J 45: 73-80.
- McCullough KB, Formea CM, Berg KD, Burzynski JA, et al. (2011) Assessment of the pharmacogenomics educational needs of pharmacists. Am J Pharm Educ 75: 51.
- Roederer MW, Riper MV, Valgus J, Knafl G, McLeod (2012) Knowledge, attitudes and education of pharmacists regarding pharmacogenetic testing. Personal Med 9: 19-27.
- Yau A, Aziz ABA, Haque M (2015) Knowledge, attitude and practice concerning pharmacogenomics among pharmacists: A systematic review. J Young Pharm 7:145-154.
- Fargher EA, Eddy C, Newman W, Qasim F, Tricker K, et al. (2007) Patients' and healthcare professionals' views on pharmacogenetic testing and its future delivery in the NHS. Pharmacogenomics 8: 1511-1519.
- Iliyasu Z, Abubakar IS, Kabir M, Abbas SM (2005) Computing knowledge, attitude and skills among healthcare professionals in aminu kano teaching hospital, Nigeria. Niger J Med 14: 200-205.
- Kudzi W, Addy BS, Dzudzor B (2015) Knowledge of pharmacogenetics among healthcare professionals and faculty members of health training institutions in Ghana. Ghana Med J 49: 50-56.
Citation: Perwitasari DA, Novitasari SL, Septiantoro BP, Kurniasih TS (2017) Knowledge, Awareness and Attitude of Pharmacists toward Pharmacogenetic Practice: Perspective of Community and Hospital in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. J Community Med Health Educ 7: 568. DOI: 10.4172/2161-0711.1000568
Copyright: © 2017 Perwitasari DA, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Share This Article
Recommended Journals
Open Access Journals
Article Tools
Article Usage
- Total views: 3914
- [From(publication date): 0-2017 - Aug 16, 2024]
- Breakdown by view type
- HTML page views: 3237
- PDF downloads: 677