Knowledge exchange between patient and pharmacist: A mixed methods study to explore the role of pharmacists in patient education and counseling in asthma and pulmonary arterial hypertension.

OBJECTIVES: To better understand the role of pharmacists in patient education and counselling: describe the perception of knowledge exchange (KE) between asthma/pulmonary arterial hypertension patients and pharmacists (hospital/community) according to four dimensions (4C-typology): cure (C1), care (C2); coordination/supply chain (C3), characteristics of the pathophysiology/disease mechanisms (C4); factors correlated with KE. METHODS: A mixed methods approach was used. Part A: data from semi-structured patient interviews were processed (thematic analysis), and a questionnaire developed. Part B: completed patient questionnaires were processed by correspondence factor analysis. RESULTS: KE (4C-typology) was correlated with pathology, disease severity, disease duration, age, hospital/community pharmacist. Patients expected pharmacists to provide C2/C3 services. KE with pharmacists covered C1/C2/C3, and with physicians, C1/C2/C4. While patients perceived KE as a means of self-learning to improve self-care skills, the two-way nature meant it provided specific experiential information feedback to pharmacists. CONCLUSIONS: This 4C-typology provides a holistic framework for optimising the pharmacists' role in education and counselling of patients with chronic diseases.

Risk evaluation of the use of complementary and alternative medicines in cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) to improve their well-being. Little is known about real risks. OBJECTIVE: To highlight 3 different types of axes: 1/cancer patients' perceptions concerning CAM; 2/misinformation/miscommunication about CAM; 3/CAM toxicity (direct toxicity, CAM-anticancer drugs, CAM-cancer interactions). METHOD: A questionnaire was proposed to cancer patients for 2 months. The CAM toxicity was analyzed if patients documented their drugs and CAM. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients responded: 72/85 were taking≥1CAM. In total, 95% patients were satisfied. There was an increasing CAM intake after cancer diagnosis. One hundred and seventeen different CAM were identified (63 herbs, 24 essential oils, 28 food supplements, 2 homeopathic specialities). Only 30/85 were aware CAM could interact with anticancer drugs. No other type of risk was perceived. INFORMATION SOURCES: 43/85 Internet, 38/85 general practitioner, 38/85 community pharmacist, 32/85 entourage, 25/85 other patients, 22/85 oncologist. In total, 81.3% questioned healthcare professionals (HCP) about CAM. Twelve patients noticed HCP lacked knowledge regarding CAM. The toxicity analysis was carried out for 24 patients who consumed 1 to 24CAM. In total, 133CAM were reported, including 87 different CAM. For only 43CAM/87, studies were found. All patients presented≥1risk: 14 at risk of CAM-cancer interactions, 15 of CAM-anticancer drug interactions, 21 of CAM direct toxicities. CONCLUSION: Many CAM are used by patients. The diagnosis of cancer favors their use. The risks are manifold: low perception of risk that can be induced by CAM, diverse and insecure sources of information and many potential toxicities that are not scientifically documented.