Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23077408›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2012

Patients' experience and perspectives on the rational use of drugs in Turkey: a survey study.

Nesrin Filiz Basaran, Ahmet Akici

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Nesrin Filiz BasaranKartal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Ahmet Akici

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimPhysicians' inappropriate prescribing habits affect patients' lives both medically and financially. To avoid these unwanted situations, the World Health Organization defined the rational use of drugs (RUD) in 1985. This study aimed to investigate whether patients were as informed about their diagnosis and medication as anticipated and their knowledge about the RUD in general.

methodsA questionnaire was given to 260 patients being treated at the Kartal Training and Research Hospital between February and March 2012.

resultsMost of the patients declared that they were not informed enough about their diagnosis and not all of the physicians evaluated their therapies. These undesirable conditions were due to high daily examined patient numbers. A total of 68.6% of patients stated that time allotted per patient was 0-10 minutes, 33.1% found the information given sufficient, and 11.3% were told to repeat back narratives about their treatments. Instructions and warnings given by physicians about prescribed drugs did not fully meet the RUD criteria. The majority of referred patients were willing to be educated about the subject.

conclusionThese results showed that heavy patient load seriously affects the RUD process. Improvement of the current health system should be given serious consideration. After sufficient arrangements have been made in this field, patients will be able to be informed properly about medicines prescribed by their physicians. Also, public education programs will be helpful to raise awareness of the subject on a larger scale.

Indexed as

medical informationpatient loadprescribed medicinepublic educationrational use of drugs

Identifiers

PMID23077408
PMCPMC3474174

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.