Brazilian Version of the Health Care Provider HIV/AIDS Stigma Scale: Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Evaluation Among Healthcare Students.

We aimed to validate the Health Care Provider HIV/AIDS Stigma Scale (HPASS) among healthcare students in Brazil. The validation process occurred in three phases from August 2022 to July 2023: translation and cross-cultural adaptation; content validity assessment involving four experts; and evaluation of psychometric properties among 553 healthcare students from the Federal University of Espírito Santo. We used exploratory factor analysis and convergent validity for structural validation. The average scale content validity index was 0.90, while the evaluation of validity evidence based on the internal structure indicated a robust explanatory model. Parallel analysis indicated that the scale is composed by two dimensions: "Discrimination/Prejudice" and "Stereotype"; the composite reliability values for these dimensions were 0.96 and 0.85, respectively. The Brazilian version of HPASS has shown to be a simple, reliable, and psychometrically valid measure to quantify HIV stigma among healthcare students who speak Brazilian Portuguese.Resumen El objetivo de este estudio fue validar la "Health Care Provider HIV/AIDS Stigma Scale" (HPASS) entre estudiantes de salud en Brasil. El proceso de validación se llevó a cabo en tres etapas: traducción y adaptación transcultural; evaluación de la validez de contenido; y evaluación de las propiedades psicométricas con estudiantes de salud de la Universidad Federal de Espírito Santo. El índice de validez de contenido promedio de la escala fue de 0.90, mientras que la evaluación de la evidencia de validez basada en la estructura interna indicó un modelo explicativo sólido. El análisis paralelo indicó que la escala está compuesta por dos dimensiones: "Discriminación/Prejuicio" y "Estereotipo". La versión brasileña de HPASS ha demostrado ser una medida simple, confiable y psicométricamente válida para cuantificar el estigma del VIH entre estudiantes de salud que hablan portugués brasileño.

Does drug dispensing improve the health outcomes of patients attending community pharmacies? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Drug dispensing is a clinical pharmacy service that promotes access to medicines and their rational use. However, there is a lack of evidence for the impact of drug dispensing on patients' health outcomes. Thus, the purpose of this study was to assess the influence of drug dispensing on the clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes of patients attending community pharmacies. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in April 2021 using PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and Open Thesis. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles according to the eligibility criteria. Methodological quality was assessed using tools from the Joanna Briggs Institute, and the literature was synthesized narratively. RESULTS: We retrieved 3,685 articles and included nine studies that presented 13 different outcomes. Regarding the design, they were cross-sectional (n = 4), randomized clinical trials (n = 4), and quasi-experimental (n = 1). A positive influence of drug dispensing on health outcomes was demonstrated through six clinical, four humanistic and three economic outcomes. Eight studies (88,9 %) used intermediate outcomes. The assessment of methodological quality was characterized by a lack of clarity and/or lack of information in primary studies. CONCLUSIONS: Most articles included in this review reported a positive influence of drug dispensing performed by community pharmacists on patients' health outcomes. The findings of this study may be of interest to patients, pharmacists, decision makers, and healthcare systems, since they may contribute to evidence-based decision-making, strengthening the contribution of community pharmacists to health care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020191701 .

Evaluation of the heterogeneity of studies estimating the association between risk factors and the use of potentially inappropriate drug therapy for the elderly: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to evaluate the heterogeneity of studies estimating the association between risk factors (age, gender, and polypharmacy) and the use of potentially inappropriate drug therapy for the elderly (PIDT). METHODOLOGY: This study is a systematic review with meta-analysis of observational studies. LILACS, PubMed, Scopus, and the Web of Science databases were reviewed. The following data were extracted from the included studies: country, type of study, characteristics of the sample, practice scenarios, instruments to evaluate potentially inappropriate drug therapy for the older adults, and patient-related variables. RESULTS: Twenty-nine articles (17 cross-sectional and 12 cohort) were included. The majority of the studies were conducted in Europe. Regarding the study durations, 3 to 18 months was necessary to perform the research. As for the sample characteristics, all the studies analyzed involved the older adults and included anywhere from 96 patients to 33,830,599 outpatient consultations. Of the variables analyzed, only polypharmacy presented a positive association with the use of PIDT. All meta-analysis studies showed high heterogeneity, indicating the lack of a methodological standardization of the studies included, among other factors.

Validation of Autism Stigma Knowledge - Questionnaire (ASK-Q) for Brazilian Portuguese.

Background: Low levels of knowledge among health professionals about autism spectrum disorders (ASD) can impair the care provided to people with autism. In Brazil, there are still no validated instruments that assess the knowledge of pharmacy students and pharmacists regarding ASD. Objective: This study aimed to carry out the cross-cultural adaptation of the Autism Stigma Knowledge Questionnaire (ASK-Q) into Brazilian Portuguese and to evaluate the evidence of content validity. Methods: This study was conducted in two stages, as recommended in the literature. Stage 1 corresponded to cross-cultural adaptation carried out in six phases (translation of the ASK-Q, synthesis of the translations, evaluation by a committee of experts, evaluation by the target audience of pharmacy students and pharmacists, reverse translation, and evaluation by the author of the original instrument). Step 2 corresponds to the assessment of content validity evidence. Results: The instrument presented semantic, idiomatic, conceptual, and cultural equivalences, and the author considered the adaptation adequate. Content validity had an adequate coefficient (0.89). The ASK-Q was cross-culturally adapted to the Brazilian context according to the main theoretical framework. Conclusions: Future studies will be conducted to evaluate other evidence for the validity of the ASK-Q-Brasil. These studies will be fundamental in assessing knowledge about ASD.

Implementation of clinical pharmacy services using problematization with Maguerez Arc: A quasi-experimental before-after study.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: The growth of clinical pharmacy services (CPS) has positively impacted clinical, economic, and humanistic health outcomes. However, detailed studies on the process of implementing CPS in healthcare systems are incipient. Thus, the present study aimed to evaluate the CPS implementation in certain public health units in a metropolis in northeast Brazil. METHODS: A quasi-experimental before-and-after study was carried out in Recife City, from July 2015 to March 2016. The study was carried out using the Methodology of Problematization with Maguerez Arc and was divided into: initial evaluation (before), planning, interventions, and preliminary evaluation (after). The participants were pharmacists, patients, health professionals, and local health managers. Descriptive statistics were used to report data. The statistical significance of the comparison between variables was evaluated using the Wilcoxon test (95% CI; P ≤ .05). RESULTS: Initial evaluation: Identified incipient CPS, a lack of structure and work process of pharmacists. Planning: Sixteen brainstorming meetings were held with the different actors resulting in a strategic plan. INTERVENTION: Twenty-two political-administrative meetings were held with managers and health teams and 768 hours of theoretical and practical training with mentoring for pharmacists. Preliminary evaluation: Structure indicators presented a statistically significant difference, differently from the process indicators. Pharmacists attended 842 patients and performed 1465 pharmaceutical consultations in 6 months. Regarding the outcome indicators, it was possible to identify changes in the clinical status of the most prevalent diseases among those patients who attended three pharmaceutical consultations. CONCLUSIONS: It was possible to evaluate the CPS implementation in certain public health units in a metropolis in Brazil, through the Methodology of Problematization with Maguerez Arc. This methodology may be part of models for future implementations of CPS in health systems.

Development and content validation of an instrument to support pharmaceutical counselling for dispensing of prescribed medicines.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: Counselling is essential in drug dispensing, since it enables patients to receive and understand the information to correctly use their medicines. Although counselling is a quality indicator on drug dispensing, models that guide pharmacists in this practice are scarce. Thus, this study aimed to develop and validate the content of an instrument to support pharmaceutical counselling for dispensing of prescribed medicines. METHOD: A two-stage validation study was conducted out from February to October 2017. The first stage involved the development of the instrument, and the second involved content validation. Instrument development included the following three steps: (1) drafting of the prototype; (2) an academic brainstorming meeting, and (3) a pre-Delphi process. Content validation was then conducted using the Delphi technique. At this stage, 40 pharmacists who were experts in drug dispensing, were invited to assess the instrument. Consensus among experts was calculated according to the content validity index (CVI). RESULTS: The development stage generated three versions of the instrument: the prototype, Version 1 (modified after brainstorming meeting), and Version 2 (modified after the pre-Delphi process). Version 2 underwent the content validation process, in which 29 pharmacists participated during the first round (rate of return: 72.5%) and 23 of these during the second round (rate of return: 79.31%). All items obtained CVI > 0.82 and were thus considered to be validated. The final instrument comprised three components: suggestions for questions, dispensing process reasoning, and suggestions for counselling, and other conduct in 11 stages, each representing a step in the clinical reasoning process. CONCLUSIONS: An instrument was developed to support pharmaceutical counselling for dispensing of prescribed medicines, suggesting main questions, counselling, and conduct to be taken by pharmacists, and its content validity was verified.