A cross-sectional survey on the experience of people with allergic rhinitis amidst COVID-19 pandemic: The impact of the facemask: A pilot study

Background: Since outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, almost whole world asked to wear the facemask especially in the public areas as a precaution to avoid the transmission of the disease, and curbs the pandemic. Looking from another perspective, we need to consider the effect of the facemask in reducing allergic rhinitis symptoms. Objective: The current study objective was to assess the impact of facemasks on the symptoms of allergic rhinitis in subjects who were obligatory using facemask due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The current study was ethically approved self-administered validated survey (Cronbach Alfa 0.81) comprised of 28-items to assess the impact of wearing the facemask, and whether there was an improvement in symptoms of allergic rhinitis. The outcome measure was the responses to the four domains (knowledge, attitude, symptoms, and help/advice) measured on Likert scale to assess the responses of subjects with allergic rhinitis during the COVID -19 pandemic. Results: 82 respondents (mean age was 22.59 ±2.77 years) have completed the survey, of which 73 females (89%) and (52/82, 63.4%) university students. 29 (35.4%), stated that the fabric facemask is useful in reduction of symptoms. 44 (53.7%) believe that the surgical mask N95 is very beneficial in the reduction of symptoms. There was a significant difference in knowledge levels for both eye and nasal symptoms’ reduction responses (P <0.001). Tukey’s HSD (honestly significant difference) used to determine the specifics of the variances (differences in multiple means) in symptom reduction. For eye symptoms, the analysis revealed that respondents who reported that they had reduced symptoms had higher knowledge scores (6.74±2.7) than those who reported no reduction in allergic symptoms (mean ±SD: 4.96±3.2). The lowest score was associated with respondents that were uncertain regarding their symptom alleviation (mean ±SD: 4.53±3.1). (3.94±2.5). (AU)

Exploring the pharmacy students' perspectives on off-campus online learning experiences amid COVID-19 crises: A cross-sectional survey.

Background: The pandemic of COVID-19 has placed many challenges for pharmacy students' learning experiences via the online e- system. There is paucity of studies that addresses this in colleges of pharmacies in United Arab Emirates (UAE). Objective: We have explored the preparedness, attitudes, experiences, and barriers/facilitators, and delineated factors that may affect the pharmacy students' e-learning process amid the COVID-19 crises. Methods: The current study was cross-sectional, and survey-based (anonymously self-administered) that utilized theoretical domains framework. The survey (multiple statements) was comprised of four domains (based on theoretical domain framework) that has elaborated on the preparedness, attitudes, experiences and barriers for the pharmacy students' e-learning (all years and interns). The validated (Cronbach Alfa 0.821) and piloted survey posted to the Google form and a link distributed to the pharmacy students. The survey was comprised of four domains (34 statements), distributed as five in preparedness, eleven in attitude, eleven in the experiences, and seven in the barriers/facilitators (theoretical domains framework). Outcome measure: The primary outcome was the total sum of scores of individual statements and each individual four domain of the questionnaire (preparedness, attitude, experiences, and barriers/facilitators). Results: Two hundred thirty respondents participated in the survey (230/400, response rate 57.5%), of which 193 were females (83.9%) versus 37 males (16.1%). The mean age (years) was 19.9 ± 1.9 (males 19.8 ± 1.6 and females 20.0 ± 1.9). The mean total score for preparedness Q1 to Q5 (domain maximum score 25); and for the attitude Q6 to Q16 (domain maximum score of 60) were 14.9 ± 3.8 (95% CI 14.4 - 15.4; P < 0.05), 29.5 ± 7.4 (95% CI 28.6 - 30.5; P < 0.05) respectively. While for the experiences Q17 to Q27 (domain maximum score 55); and for the barriers/facilitators Q28 to Q34 (domain maximum score 30) 40.1 ± 8.0 (95% CI 39.1 - 41.1; P < 0.0001), and 20.9 ± 4.9 (95% CI 20.3-21.5;P < 0.05) respectively. Conclusion: Our pharmacy students support the use of e-learning in pharmacy education, and seems prepared for the future technology moves in education. The colleges of pharmacies need to conduct further research on versatile innovative models such as virtual learning/artificial intelligence that fits with their students' perspectives.

Protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, cost-benefit analysis and interrupted timeseries interventions on pharmacist’s prescribing

Background: Shortening the process of prescribing via permitting the pharmacist to select the most appropriate pharmaceuticals for each particular patient may provide great opportunities for pharmacists to develop suitable pharmaceutical care plan, monitor and follow up prescribed medications, communicate and consult physicians for more confirmations. Objective: The objective of the current protocol for the systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacists prescribing interventions was to explore, investigate the evidence, assess and compare PICO in patients with medical conditions (population), receiving pharmacist’s prescribing care services (interventions) versus non-pharmacist’s prescribing (comparators), and identify how it will impact the clinical, humanistic, and economic patient’s outcomes (outcomes). Methods: The necessary elements of PRISMA will be strictly followed to report the systematic review. The meta-analysis will be reported in line with the Cochrane guidelines for synthesis of trials and all forms will be based on quality measures as per the validated Cochrane templates. We will present the results of the systematic review and the meta-analysis based on PICO comparison between the included trials. Results: We have identified four models of pharmacist prescribing interventions (independent, dependent [collaborative], supplementary, and emergency prescribing). The results will contain a systematic critical evaluation of the included trials in terms of the sample number of the population (characteristics), the type of interventions and the comparators, and the main outcome measures. Conclusion: This protocol will report the evidence and explore the magnitude of impact of pharmacist prescribing interventions, on clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes. (AU)

Protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, cost-benefit analysis and interrupted time-series interventions on pharmacist's prescribing.

Background: Shortening the process of prescribing via permitting the pharmacist to select the most appropriate pharmaceuticals for each particular patient may provide great opportunities for pharmacists to develop suitable pharmaceutical care plan, monitor and follow up prescribed medications, communicate and consult physicians for more confirmations. Objective: The objective of the current protocol for the systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacists prescribing interventions was to explore, investigate the evidence, assess and compare PICO in patients with medical conditions (population), receiving pharmacist's prescribing care services (interventions) versus non-pharmacist's prescribing (comparators), and identify how it will impact the clinical, humanistic, and economic patient's outcomes (outcomes). Methods: The necessary elements of PRISMA will be strictly followed to report the systematic review. The meta-analysis will be reported in line with the Cochrane guidelines for synthesis of trials and all forms will be based on quality measures as per the validated Cochrane templates. We will present the results of the systematic review and the meta-analysis based on PICO comparison between the included trials. Results: We have identified four models of pharmacist prescribing interventions (independent, dependent [collaborative], supplementary, and emergency prescribing). The results will contain a systematic critical evaluation of the included trials in terms of the sample number of the population (characteristics), the type of interventions and the comparators, and the main outcome measures. Conclusion: This protocol will report the evidence and explore the magnitude of impact of pharmacist prescribing interventions, on clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes. .