RESUMO
Background: Academic trials are essential in investigating health research questions relevant to the society. Only a few leading research institutions in India have been engaged in academic trials. Thus, there is a need to understand what factors dampen the spirit of the academician in conducting academic clinical trials. Aims and Objectives: The aim of the study is to evaluate the investigator's perception of obstacles to carrying out academic trials and to identify factors that will motivate investigators in conducting academic trials. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study in a tertiary care hospital for 6 months. Faculty members working in academic institutes were selected. A structured questionnaire was designed for the study and administered using google forms. Responses were taken on a Likert scale. Validity and reliability assessments were carried out. Mann-Whitney test was applied to assess differences between demographic groups. P <0.05 was considered significant. Results: Most of the participants rated applying for research grants (76%), obtaining funding for the study and making arrangements for compensation for trial-related events (75%) as extremely challenging. We found that the degree of challenge is significantly lower in the faculty members who conducted clinical trials in the past as against those who did not (P = 0.00069). We also found that the degree of challenge is significantly higher in the faculty members with <10 years of experience than those with >10 years of experience (P = 0.00001). Conclusion: Thus, to conclude the challenges faced by investigators were at multiple levels, most common being applying for research grants and making arrangements for the funds for payment towards participation or study-related injury. Faculty members with exposure to conducting clinical trials and with experience of more than 10 years had perceived a reduced degree of challenges.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Knowledge of a disease can influence paramedic's attitudes and practices, and incorrect attitudes and practices directly increase the risk of infection. Understanding paramedic's knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAPs) and possible risk factors helps to predict the outcomes of planned behavior. To assess KAP regarding COVID-19 through Google form among paramedical staff at tertiary care teaching institutes of central India. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional, multicentric, questionnaire-based study was conducted from May 2020 to August 2020 among 230 paramedical staff from two tertiary care teaching institutes through Google form. Data were analyzed by Chi-square test and parametric test using GraphPad prism software version 5.0. RESULTS: All participants had knowledge about symptomatology of COVID-19. However, significantly more participants in nursing cadre know about definition of close contact. The mean knowledge score was 4.84 ± 0.6. The mean score for attitude was 4.48 ± 0.83. Overall, 54.78% of paramedical staff follow correct prevention strategies. Of them, significantly more nursing staff correctly practice infection control measures upon arrival of COVID-19 patients (P = 0.033). There was a significant difference among both groups regarding wearing of appropriate personal protective equipment while transporting/accompanying patients who are confirmed with COVID 19 (P = 0.009). The overall score for practice is 3.97 ± 1.03. The practice score was significantly better in nursing cadre as compared to nonnursing cadre (P = 0.038). CONCLUSION: Majority of the participants had good knowledge and positive attitude. Nursing cadre follows better preventive practices as compared to nonnursing cadre while performing COVID-related duties. Considering these facts, dodges responsible for poor practices should be identified and resolved so that India will be able to conquest the battle against the disease.
RESUMO
CONTEXT: Inappropriate self-medication can increase chances of adverse drug reactions, disease aggravation, or drug interactions. Analgesics are most commonly used as self-medication. AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare analgesic self-medication practices among medical and paramedical undergraduate students of a tertiary care teaching institute in Central India. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional, observational study was conducted in 216 undergraduate medical (MBBS and BDS) and paramedical (occupational therapy/physiotherapy and BSc nursing) students. A predesigned, self-developed, semi-structured questionnaire was used. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The Chi-square test was used for testing statistical significance. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of self-medication with analgesics was 83.33%. Self-medication was significantly high among medical students as compared to paramedical students (P = 0.003). Significantly more medical students were aware about adverse drug reactions of analgesics as compared to paramedical students (P = 0.019). The most common source of information about drugs was previous prescription (58.33%), followed by media including the Internet (53.70%). The most dominant symptom compelling self-medication was found to be muscular pain (42.12%), followed by headache (36.57%). 54.16% of the students revealed that self-medication provides quick relief from pain. The most commonly used analgesic was paracetamol (82.40%), followed by diclofenac (22.68%). A significant number of paramedical students do not know exactly what precautions should be taken while taking analgesics (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Medical students are more indulged in self-medication practices with analgesics. Paramedical students need to be educated regarding safe use of analgesics.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a global health problem. Almost 10%-25% of population worldwide is affected by AR. Oral/intranasal H1-antihistamine, decongestants, leukotriene receptor antagonists, and intranasal corticosteroids are the pillars in the management of AR. The combination therapy of montelukast with antihistaminic provides enhancing and complimentary effects, thereby reducing the symptoms effectively, but there are scanty data regarding the comparisons of combinations. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of montelukast-levocetirizine and montelukast-fexofenadine combination in patients of AR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy patients with AR participated in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel, active-controlled, comparative 4-week trial. The patients between the age group of 18-65 years of either gender having moderate-severe intermittent or mild persistent AR were included in the study. The study inclusion criteria required the patients with total nasal symptom score (TNSS) of 5 or higher. The patients were randomly divided into two treatment groups with montelukast-levocetirizine (10 mg and 5 mg) in one group and montelukast-fexofenadine (10 mg and 120 mg) in another group. TNSS parameter was the main effectiveness parameter. RESULTS: Evaluation of TNSS revealed significant difference (P < 0.05) when compared from baseline to 4th week in both groups. The mean change of TNSS, i.e., 9.46 was significant (P < 0.05) in montelukast-fexofenadine group. The cost-effectiveness ratio was less in montelukast-levocetirizine group than in montelukast-fexofenadine group. CONCLUSION: The decrease in TNSS was more in montelukast-fexofenadine group, but the cost-effectiveness is more with montelukast-levocetirizine combination.