| Abstract [eng] |
The aim of the study: To evaluate pharmacists’ (PHA) knowledge about continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems and the role of PHA consultation in CGM diabetic user during a routine pharmacy visit (RPV). Objectives: 1. To evaluate PHA knowledge of diabetes. 2. To evaluate PHA knowledge of CGM and the association with gender. 3. To evaluate PHA attitude towards glycemic self-monitoring (GSM) consultation given by a PHA regarding the use of CGM and glucometers for diabetic patient (DP) during a RPV and the association with the number of consulted DP per day. 4. To evaluate the attitude of DP to the consultation of PHA regarding GSM, training and evaluation of results controled by PHA in DP during a RPV, possible differences between users of different self-monitoring tools, family status and relation with the behavior of DP. 5. To evaluate the attitude of DP to CGM and the association with the DP. Methods: The study was conducted in Vilnius city community pharmacies of the "Eurovaistinė" chain. Subjects - 64 community PHA and 42 patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Anonymous questionnaire surveys of PHA and DP were used. Results: The results of the DKT revealed that PHA knowledge about diabetes was average (16.38 ± 2.84 / 20), and the differences in certain questions were significantly different regarding to the gender. PHA diabetes knowledge was associated with willingness to participate in CGM training. PHA knowledge regarding the CGM results was average and significant differences between gender were found in all 6 questions, indicating better knowledge of female PHA. The number of DP consulted by PHA per day was significantly associated with PHA attitudes towards providing information on injection techniques. DP would like a PHA to provide detailed advice on a consistent and structured GSM (4.33 ± 1.1 / 5), would like to be trained by a PHA on how to properly perform mandatory GSM (3.95 ± 1.4 / 5) and that they would be reminded to perform the mandatory GSM (3.81 ± 1.4 / 5). DP willingness to receive GSM reminder at the pharmacy was significantly different between glucometer users and CGM. However, the results showed that DP did not agree that the PHA would check whether they performed mandatory GSM (2.31 ± 1.09 / 5). The behavior of CGM users and glucometer users differed significantly on various questions about products, first self-help and exercise. Significant associations of behavior and marital status were found in many questions. Significant associations with marital status were found when assessing DP attitudes toward the benefits of CGM with a significant other in favor of various questions. Significant differences were found in DP marital status and DP confidence in GSM tools, and perceived pain while using them in favor of those with a second half. Conclusions: 1. Self evaluated knowledge about diabetes of PHA showed that PHA rate their knowledge as average, but during the objective evaluation, it was revealed that most PHA knowledge about diabetes was good. 2. PHA knowledge about CGM was average and differed between male and female PHA. 3. The attitude of PHA to the counseling provided to DP regarding the use of CGM and glucometers was more negative than positive and differed according to the number of DP consulted per day. 4. The attitude of DP towards the advice, training and reminding of GSM provided by the PHA was positive, but negative for the glycemic control by the PHA; and DP saw the benefits of GSM consultation, training and monitoring of their diabetes. Significant differences were found between users of different self-control tools, marital status and the relationship with the behavior of DP. 5. The attitude of DP towards CGM was positive and differed significantly between gender and marital status. |
