RESUMO
Objective: This study aimed to assess Jordanians' perception and attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in Jordan. Another objective was to evaluate the population's confidence in vaccine efficacy, their fears of the vaccines, and their perceptions and attitudes after vaccination. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted over four months (August 2021- December 2021) and included the general Jordanian population above 18 years old. Results: A total of 398 participants were included in the study, with the majority (around 81.0%) received at least one dose of any of COVID-19 vaccines approved for use in Jordan. Most non-vaccinated participants (67.4%) were either unwilling to receive the COVID-19 vaccine or unsure. The main reasons for receiving the vaccine were: family protection, self-protection, global efforts to fight the virus and local restrictions, with some variability between vaccinated and non-vaccinated. The major reasons for fear of COVID-19 vaccines were limited research, vaccine effectiveness, and vaccine side effects. Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was the most trusted vaccine by vaccinated and non-vaccinated participants (47.8% and 57.9%, respectively), and Oxford-AstraZeneca was the most feared by them (42.2% and 57.9%, respectively). Internet websites (>85.0%), social media platforms (>70.0%), relatives and friends (>69.0%), and news applications (>60.0%) were the major sources of information about the COVID-19 vaccines among participants. Conclusion: Our results revealed that hesitation in receiving the vaccine remains a challenge in Jordan, as in other countries. The findings also show that participants, regardless of their vaccination status, had many concerns about the four types of vaccines approved for use in Jordan during the study conduction period. Moreover, the participants' perceptions and attitudes towards the vaccines were variable between vaccinated and non-vaccinated participants and were variable for the four types of vaccines.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Pharmacists can have a valuable role in educating patients on correct inhaler technique leading to improved asthma management. Rural areas can benefit from the role of the pharmacist considering the barriers found in attending primary health-care facilities. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the impact of inhaler technique education delivered by pharmacists on patients' inhaler technique, Asthma Control Test (ACT) score, forced expiratory volume in the first 1 second (FEV1%), and reliever use (puffs/day). METHODS: A pre-post interventional study was conducted over 6 months from February 2017 to July 2017 in rural areas in Jordan. Asthma patients visiting respiratory clinics and using metered dose inhaler (MDI) or turbuhaler (TH) controlled medication were randomly recruited. Inhaler technique was assessed via published checklists. The ACT, FEV1%, and reliever use (puffs/day) were assessed. Patients were educated on inhaler technique via demonstration with return demonstration education. All assessments were repeated 3 months post education. RESULTS: A total of 103 (TH, n=44; MDI, n=59) patients were recruited (mean age=46.5±13.5), 74% females. Patients reported an overuse of their reliever (5.1±4.2 puffs/day). Only 2 patients (1.9%) had well-controlled asthma, while the rest had either moderately (19.4%) or poorly (78.6%) controlled asthma. Patients using the MDI achieved 3.03±4.30 ACT score improvement (p<0.001), which is a clinically significant improvement in control. Patients using the TH achieved a statistically significant improvement of 2.07±4.72 (p=0.031). FEV1% improved significantly for MDI users (p=0.005) but not for TH users (p=0.097). Reliever use decreased significantly for MDI and TH users. CONCLUSION: Asthmatic patients living in rural areas in Jordan reported poor inhaler technique, ACT scores, and FEV1% scores and high use of reliever medications. Pharmacist-led educational intervention resulted in improved inhaler technique scores, ACT scores, and FEV1% scores and lowered reliever use over time.