ArticlePloS one2017
Knowledge, skills and attitudes of hospital pharmacists in the use of information technology and electronic tools to support clinical practice: A Brazilian survey.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lebanese pharmacists' confidence and self-perceptions of computer literacy: scale validation and correlates.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to identify the knowledge, skills and attitudes of Brazilian hospital pharmacists in the use of information technology and electronic tools to support clinical practice.
methodsA questionnaire was sent by email to clinical pharmacists working public and private hospitals in Brazil. The instrument was validated using the method of Polit and Beck to determine the content validity index. Data (n = 348) were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Pearson's Chi-square test and Gamma correlation tests.
resultsPharmacists had 1-4 electronic devices for personal use, mainly smartphones (84.8%; n = 295) and laptops (81.6%; n = 284). At work, pharmacists had access to a computer (89.4%; n = 311), mostly connected to the internet (83.9%; n = 292). They felt competent (very capable/capable) searching for a web page/web site on a specific subject (100%; n = 348), downloading files (99.7%; n = 347), using spreadsheets (90.2%; n = 314), searching using MeSH terms in PubMed (97.4%; n = 339) and general searching for articles in bibliographic databases (such as Medline/PubMed: 93.4%; n = 325). Pharmacists did not feel competent in using statistical analysis software (somewhat capable/incapable: 78.4%; n = 273). Most pharmacists reported that they had not received formal education to perform most of these actions except searching using MeSH terms. Access to bibliographic databases was available in Brazilian hospitals, however, most pharmacists (78.7%; n = 274) reported daily use of a non-specific search engine such as Google. This result may reflect the lack of formal knowledge and training in the use of bibliographic databases and difficulty with the English language. The need to expand knowledge about information search tools was recognized by most pharmacists in clinical practice in Brazil, especially those with less time dedicated exclusively to clinical activity (Chi-square, p = 0.006).
conclusionThese results will assist in defining minimal competencies for the training of pharmacists in the field of information technology to support clinical practice. Knowledge and skill gaps are evident in the use of bibliographic databases, spreadsheets and statistical tools.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.