ArticlePloS one2024
Assessment of knowledge and perception of prescribers towards rational medicine use in the Ashanti Region of Ghana.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Prevalence and predictors of prescribing errors in a primary care setting in Ghana.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2026Article
- A survey on the attitudes of pediatric residents toward rational use of medicines and associated factors in Izmir, Turkey.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Adherence to WHO/INRUD prescription indicators in public hospitals: evidence from the Ashanti Region, Ghana.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2025Article
- Knowledge, attitudes and practices on antimicrobial resistance among healthcare workers in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in infectious diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrescribers must possess extensive knowledge and maintain a positive attitude towards the rational use of medicines to achieve desirable treatment outcomes and effectively prevent treatment failures, increased costs, drug toxicities, and interactions. The objective of this study was to evaluate prescribers' understanding and perception concerning the rational use of medicines in public hospitals. Additionally, the study aimed to identify the factors that influence rational prescribing practices.
methodsA structured data instrument was developed to collect demographic data and evaluate participants' knowledge and perception of rational medicine use, in line with the study objectives. Chi-squared statistics and Fisher's exact test were utilized to identify factors associated with good knowledge and perception among participants. Logistic regression was then employed to assess the strength of the associations, with odd ratios reported at a significant level of 0.05.
resultsOut of 192 participants, 85.4% held a positive view of rational medicine use, stressing patient safety and recognizing risks like antimicrobial resistance and polypharmacy. Perception was influenced by factors such as prescriber profession, access to references, and drug bulletin updates. Additionally, 65.6% demonstrated good knowledge of rational medicine use, which was notably influenced by factors like using standard prescribing guidelines, having a functional Drug and Therapeutics Committee, prescriber profession, and the frequency of drug bulletin updates.
conclusionThe study emphasizes the critical need to address knowledge gaps among healthcare professionals, especially nurses and other prescribers, to ensure the safe and effective use of medications. It highlights the positive influence of utilizing preferred prescribing references and the existence of functional Drug and Therapeutics Committees in hospitals on knowledge levels. However, the unexpected findings regarding the limited impact of frequent updates of drug bulletins require further investigation.
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.