Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37007845›Full record

ArticleSexual medicine2023

First insights into the current practice, knowledge, and attitudes of community pharmacists regarding sexual adverse drug reactions: a cross-sectional survey.

Rineke Gordijn, Melianthe P J Nicolai, Henk W Elzevier, Henk-Jan Guchelaar, Martina Teichert

Open access · goldAbstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Sexual medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 100% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rineke GordijnDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, 2300 RC, the  Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2213-7601
Melianthe P J NicolaiDepartment of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, 1066 CX, the  Netherlands.
Henk W ElzevierDepartment of Urology and Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, 2300 RC, the  Netherlands.
Henk-Jan GuchelaarDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, 2300 RC, the  Netherlands.
Martina TeichertDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, 2300 RC, the  Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Sexual function can be negatively influenced by adverse drug reactions (ADRs) potentially caused by >300 drugs. These sexual ADRs (sADRs) can lead to low adherence and decreased quality of life. Physicians are known to barely discuss sexual function. Pharmacists also have an important role in informing and advising patients on ADRs, but it is unknown how community pharmacists deal with sADRs. Aims: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current practice, attitudes, and knowledge of community pharmacists about informing, detecting, and discussing sADRs. Methods: An online survey with 31 questions was sent to all 1932 pharmacy members of the Royal Dutch Pharmacists Association. The survey was modified from previous surveys that questioned different medical disciplines on their practice, attitudes, and knowledge of sexual function related to their fields. Questions were added on pharmacists' practice concerning ADRs in general. Results: A total of 97 (5%) pharmacists responded. During first dispenses of drugs, 64 (66%) informed patients on a selection of common ADRs. Almost all (n = 93, 97%) discussed diarrhea or constipation in at least half of the related occasions, whereas 26 to 31 (27%-33%) discussed sADRs. The sADRs for high-risk drugs were more often named at first than at second dispenses (n = 61 [71%] vs n = 28 [32%]). Pharmacy technicians were generally considered not to discuss sADRs (n = 73, 76%; never or in less than half of the occasions). Lack of privacy (n = 54, 57%) and language barriers (n = 45, 47%) were the most acknowledged barriers to discuss sADRs. Moreover, 46% (n = 45) considered their knowledge insufficient to discuss sADRs. Responsibility for informing, advising, and detecting sADRs was most often attributed to pharmacy technicians (n = 59, 62%), pharmacists (n = 46, 48%), and patients (n = 75, 80%), respectively. Conclusion: This study shows that one-third of pharmacists and two-thirds of pharmacy technicians barely talked about sADRs during first dispenses for high-risk drugs. The low response rate suggests that mostly interested pharmacists responded, thus likely overestimating the sADR discussion rate. To provide patients with unique opportunities to discuss sADRs in community pharmacies, more attention is needed for raising awareness about the topic among pharmacists and for barriers such as the presence of other clients and limited knowledge about sADRs.

Indexed as

communicationpharmaceutical care–pharmacist–patient relationsexual adverse drug reactionssexual dysfunction

Identifiers

PMID37007845
PMCPMC10065176
OpenAlexW4315750724

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.