4.6 Article

Engaging community pharmacists to eliminate inadvertent doping in sports: A study of their knowledge on doping

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 17, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268878

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the knowledge of community pharmacists in Malaysia regarding the issue of inadvertent doping. The results showed that the pharmacists had limited knowledge in this area and highlighted the need for further education and training.
This study aimed to evaluate the community pharmacists' knowledge of tackling the issue of inadvertent doping in Malaysia. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 384 community pharmacists working in Malaysia using a self-administered questionnaire. All the respondents were pharmacists fully registered with the Pharmacy Board of Malaysia and had been working in the community setting for at least one year. Of the 426 community pharmacists approached, 384 community pharmacists participated in this study, giving a response rate of 90.14%. The majority of the respondents were females (63.5%), graduated from local universities (74.9%), with median years of practising as a community pharmacist of six years (interquartile range, IQR = 9 years). The respondents were found to have moderate levels of doping-related knowledge (median score of 52 out of 100). Anabolic steroids (95.8%), stimulants (78.6%) and growth factors (65.6%) were recognised as prohibited substances by most of the respondents. Around 65.9% did not recognise that inadvertent doping is also considered a doping violation. Most of them (90%) also have poor levels of knowledge of doping scenarios in the country. Community pharmacists in Malaysia have limited knowledge in the field of doping. More programmes and activities related to doping and drugs in sports should be held to enhance the community pharmacists' knowledge on the issue of inadvertent doping.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available