3.9 Article

Evaluation of pharmacist counseling in improving knowledge, attitude, and practice in chronic kidney disease patients

期刊

SAGE OPEN MEDICINE
卷 1, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/2050312113516111

关键词

Chronic kidney disease; counseling; knowledge; attitude; and practice score

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Chronic kidney disease is a public health problem with an increasing incidence and prevalence, poor outcomes, and high cost. Patient involvement forms the keystone in the management of chronic kidney disease. This study evaluated effects of pharmacist-provided counseling in dialysis patients in terms of their knowledge, attitude, and practice outcomes. Methods: A total of 64 patients with chronic kidney disease were enrolled into the prospective, pre-post study based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The knowledge, attitude, and practice of patients regarding chronic kidney disease were assessed and recorded via baseline questionnaire. Case group patients were counseled regarding chronic kidney disease, their medication, diet, and lifestyle, and they were also provided with informative leaflet, whereas in the control group patients, the pharmacist did not intervene. After 1-month intervention, knowledge, attitude, and practice scores of patients of both groups were measured using the same knowledge, attitude, and practice questionnaire. Effectiveness of counseling on case group patients was evaluated by comparing the mean knowledge, attitude, and practice scores before and after counseling by paired t-test. Results: Mean knowledge, attitude, and practice scores before intervention were 8.16 +/- 4.378, 38.19 +/- 3.217, and 6.69 +/- 0.896, respectively, and these scores were changed to 13.75 +/- 3.510, 38.78 +/- 3.035, and 6.91 +/- 0.777, respectively, after the intervention (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The pharmacist-provided counseling is effective in improving knowledge, attitude, and practice of patients toward the disease management.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据