ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2020
Lebanese pharmacists' confidence and self-perceptions of computer literacy: scale validation and correlates.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measuring the Digital Competence of Health Professionals: Scoping Review.JMIR medical education · 2024Article
- Efficacy and efficiency of information retrieval of community family physicians at the point of care: exploring the associations with information and computer literacy.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2023Article
- Pharmacy education and workforce: strategic recommendations based on expert consensus in Lebanon.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2023Article
- The current trends and challenges towards good community pharmacy practice and the way forward.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost pharmacists agree that continuing education (CE) programs positively affect their practice and increase their knowledge, with computer-based courses being their preferred type of CE (60.6%). The route to using medical e-services and e-learning is not straightforward. High setup costs and time commitments to sustain quality are issues brought up in this respect. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to validate the general confidence with computer use (GCWCU) scale and assess computer literacy and its associated factors among Lebanese pharmacists.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted, using a random sample of Lebanese pharmacists from all districts of Lebanon. The general confidence with computer use (GCWCU) scale was used to assess computer literacy.
resultsThis study enrolled 628 (83.73%) pharmacists. The GCWCU items converged over two factors (Cronbach's alpha = 0.716). A higher GCWCU was associated with the ease of access to the Order of Pharmacists of Lebanon e-library (beta = 2.58), owning a tablet (beta = 2.80), being connected for 4 h daily (beta = 2.71), the ease of access to the learning management system (beta = 2.39), holding a PhD (beta = 4.28) or a PharmD (beta = 1.16), and working in hospitals (beta = 2.60).
conclusionThis study showed that the GCWCU is adequate to assess computer literacy in Lebanese pharmacists and identified factors affecting and/or associated with computer literacy. It presented insights into essential computer skills and abilities of Lebanese pharmacists and identified factors associated with their general confidence with computer use in their practice. These findings would help decision-makers and CE providers design learning materials for pharmacists to improve their computer literacy for better practice and patient care.
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.