ABSTRACT
RATIONALE: Alcohol and substance use disorders are types of brain diseases that have psychological components which damage many life areas of the affected individual. Since investigating alcohol use alone is insufficient in the diagnostic evaluation process, self-awareness and the individual's long-term psychological well-being are important in the treatment process. Primary prevention is used for preventing disease in healthy people, whereas secondary prevention is used for early diagnosis of people at risk. Tertiary prevention is important to prevent the recurrence of the disease. Since substance use disorders are a chronic problems, a new need has emerged for tertiary protection in rehabilitation standards. METHODOLOGY: In this study, we aimed to develop two scales that can provide ideas about rehabilitation standards by determining the awareness of individuals with or without alcohol and substance use disorders. By so, experts in the field can have information about the risk status of their patients in the follow-up process of rehabilitation, with the data obtained from the harm perception and result awareness dimensions in the scales. The sample consisted of 1134 participants, 41 of whom had substance use disorders. RESULTS: Among the two scales developed in the study, the Uskudar Result Awareness Scale (USRAS) consisting of 25 items and 6 factors explained 58.4% of the total variance. The Uskudar Harm Perception Scale (USHPS), consisting of 36 items and 10 factors, explained 56.3% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis of the two scales resulted in acceptable goodness-of-fit values. (X2/df < 3; RMSEA < 0.08; NFI > 0.90; NNFI > 0.95; CFI > 0.95; GFI > 0.90; AGFI > 0.85). DISCUSSION: Comparisons showed that the resulting awareness of the non-SUD group was moderate (X = 3.81), whereas the SUD group had a low result awareness (X = 3.20); the effect size of the difference between the two groups was found to be high (d = 1.45; >0.8). On the other hand, the harm perception of the non-SUD group was found in the low-risk group (X = 3.78); the harm perception of the SUD group was found in the moderate-risk group (X = 3.43). According to Cohen's d calculations, the effect size of the difference between the two groups is high (d = 1.43; >0.8). It was concluded that both of the scales are valid and safe. They can be included in the treatment process and future studies.
ABSTRACT
Background: A large community pharmacy chain implemented a new digital platform to eliminate the need for patients to fill out a traditional vaccine consent form in the pharmacy. The new digital vaccine consent form allowed patients to complete the form online, where it was transmitted directly to the pharmacy's network. Objectives: To identify the characteristics of patients who used an online digital vaccine consent form to receive vaccinations and to evaluate patient satisfaction and confidence in utilizing the digital vaccine consent form to receive pharmacy services. Methods: This three-month prospective study was conducted in the Mid-Atlantic division of a large community pharmacy chain. A 16-question survey was developed using information from the literature to collect demographic information and patient confidence and satisfaction with the digital vaccine consent form. An email was sent to pharmacy staff containing instructions on the procedure for posting a recruitment flyer, distributing the survey post-vaccination, and how to return completed surveys. Univariate and bi-variate analysis were conducted. Results: Thirty-six participants responded to the survey, majority of participants were female (56%). Two patients used the digital vaccine consent form; both used because it was more convenient and were likely to use the form again. For those who did not use the digital vaccine consent form, 32% feel somewhat unconfident in using digital technologies for pharmacy services. A majority of patients prefer to be notified about new online services by email (39%) or advertisements in the pharmacy (31%). When asked the likelihood of using the digital vaccine consent form in the future, majority stated unlikely (34%) or neutral (25%). Conclusions: Most participants did not utilize the new digital vaccine form. This provides an opportunity to further engage patients on the availability and use of the digital vaccine consent form in order to advance digital technologies for pharmacy services.