| Abstract [eng] |
Aim. To evaluate the attitudes of primary care physicians (PCPs) towards prescribing iron preparations (FeP) and to identify factors that influence PCPs’ choice of prescribing FeP for patients. Objectives. 1. Evaluate the sociodemographic data of PCP and the associations with information provided to patients about FeP. 2. Evaluate patterns in PCP‘ prescribing of FeP and patient counseling on this topic, and the sources towards the information used about FeP and sociodemographic data of PCP. 3. To identify factors affecting the prescription of FeP by PCP towards to used information sources. 4. To identify the need of PCP for educational materials about FeP and FeP prescription towards to sociodemographic indicators of PCP. Methods. Cross-sectional study. Permissions for the study were obtained from the Kaunas and Vilnius Regional Biomedical Research Committees. The study used an anonymous survey consisting of a sociodemographic part of the PCP and questions to assess the provision FeP and factors affecting the provision of FeP, the need for educational tools and administrative support. The statistical package IBM SPSS version 27.0.1.0 was used to perform statistical analysis. The ANOVA model, Tukey's test, Fisher's exact test, and Chi-square test were used to evaluate the data. Results. The study included 108 PCPs (96 women (88.89%) and 12 men (11.11%)) from five cities primary care institutions. PCPs were most likely to explain the benefits of FeP and why they are needed ((4.45 ± 0.836)/5). PCPs working in Vilnius compared to those who worked in other cities often informed more patients about the features of FeP (p=0.047). 93 (86.11%) PCPs responded that they knew where to check information about FeP administration. 42 (38.9%) PCPs indicated that they do not use guidelines/protocols when prescribing FeP, those who do not use guidelines/protocols are more likely to immediately refer patients to a specialist if the patient experiences side effects caused by FeP (p=0.032). Those PCPs who searched for information on the internet or in groups for doctors on social networks least often prescribed the intravenous form FeP as the first option (n=7 (6.14%) and n=1 (4.17%) respectively). Regardless of sociodemographic data and the sources of information about FeP used, the first pharmaceutical form of FeP chosen by most PCPs is tablets (n=94 (87.04%). 50% (n=54) of respondents indicated a lack of practical protocols about FeP. Conclusions. 1. According to the PCP, patient counseling on the topic of FeP is detailed. PCPs almost always inform patients about why FeP is needed for and is least likely to inform them about its absorption-impairing properties. Younger doctors are less likely to consider possible drug interactions and are less likely to adjust medications when prescribing FeP, if necessary. 2. Almost two out of five PCPs stated in their practice that they did not rely on any relevant guidelines when prescribing and consulting patients on FeP. More than one tenth of PCPs did not know where to find information about prescribing of FeP. In all age groups, PCPs primarily prescribed the tablet form for iron deficiency anemia. Side effects of FeP were the most common reason for changing the pharmaceutical form of FeP or taking FeP at a different time of day. 3. PCPs’ practical experience was the most common factor determining the appropriate prescription of FeP. The most frequently factor affecting the quality of the consultation was lack of time. 4. The differences in the need for different educational tools depended on the age of the PCPs – doctors aged 60–69 claimed that it would be most useful to develop special apps on the topic of prescribing FeP, 30–39 PCPs preferred training on the topic of prescribing FeP. Half of the doctors indicated a lack of practical protocols for prescribing FeP. Most PCPs wanted information sources where they could quickly check information about FeP. |
