Community pharmacist's knowledge, attitude, roles and practices towards patient-centred care in Saudi Arabia: a systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives This study aimed to evaluate published original studies in Saudi Arabia about knowledge, attitude, roles and practices of community pharmacists in providing patient-centred care services. Methods Systematic searching of original studies published between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2017 using electronic databases: PubMed, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Scopus, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, TRiP database, Springer Link and Google Scholar. Studies were included if they outlined community pharmacist's knowledge, role, attitude and professional practice behaviours towards patient-centred care provided by pharmacists alone or in collaboration with other healthcare professional (s). The studies were identified, and data were extracted independently by two reviewers. The modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cross-sectional studies was used to assess the quality of each study. Key findings Twenty-four original studies conducted in Saudi Arabia were included. Majority of studies were questionnaire-based surveys (62.5%). One quarter of the studies investigated knowledge, roles and attitude of community pharmacists about irrational dispensing and prescribing of antibiotics and prescription only medicines. Included studies highlighted numerous gaps in knowledge, attitude, roles and practices of community pharmacists in Saudi Arabia in providing efficient patient-centred care services. Lack of knowledge and time, absence of pharmacy information database, deficiency of continued professional development training, unavailability of adverse drug reaction reporting forms and professional and cultural issues were some of the barriers in providing patient-centred care. Conclusions The studies showed that although community pharmacists in Saudi Arabia do provide medicine counselling and other patient-centred care services; however, these services need substantial improvement. This review may be useful for policy makers, regulators, pharmacy educators and researchers in understanding the work being performed in the community pharmacy setting in Saudi Arabia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".