Perspectives, Experiences, and Practices of Healthcare Professionals and Patients Towards Herb-Drug Interaction: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.

IF 6.1 2区 医学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL Phytotherapy Research Pub Date : 2024-11-13 DOI:10.1002/ptr.8384
Chen Shen, Zhi-Ying Ren, Hui-Di Lan, Ling-Yao Kong, Ming Yang, You-Zhu Su, Xiao-Lei Yue, Zu-Lin Wan, Li-Xue Xiao, Pi-Pi Chen, Xun Li, Xian Zhou, Nicola Robinson, Jian-Ping Liu
{"title":"Perspectives, Experiences, and Practices of Healthcare Professionals and Patients Towards Herb-Drug Interaction: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.","authors":"Chen Shen, Zhi-Ying Ren, Hui-Di Lan, Ling-Yao Kong, Ming Yang, You-Zhu Su, Xiao-Lei Yue, Zu-Lin Wan, Li-Xue Xiao, Pi-Pi Chen, Xun Li, Xian Zhou, Nicola Robinson, Jian-Ping Liu","doi":"10.1002/ptr.8384","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of the study was to understand healthcare professionals, pharmacists, and patients perspectives and experiences on clinical practice of herb-drug interactions (HDIs). A systematic review of qualitative studies was conduct. 10 electronic databases were searched from inception through September 2023. Qualitative studies, mixed-method studies, and unstructured or semi-structured cross-sectional surveys focused on healthcare professionals, pharmacists and patients' perspectives, attitudes, clinical practice behaviors, and information needs regarding HDI were included. Thematic synthesis employed Nvivo 12 software. Of 6655 studies identified, 1267 full-text articles were retrieved. Of these, 18 studies conducted in 11 countries/regions were eligible for inclusion, involving 1273 patients, 302 healthcare professionals, and 230 pharmacists. Five over-arching explanatory themes were identified: perspectives, attitudes, practices, experiences, expectations, and information needs. Complementary and alternative (CAM) physicians, pharmacists, and general practitioners were considered by patients to possess the ability or responsibility to assess potential HDIs. Pharmacists yet encountered difficulties due to conflicting information sources and inadequate training. Healthcare professionals, including pharmacists, usually only assessed HDIs when they were deemed to cause serious adverse effects. Regarding expectations and information needs, patients were particularly concerned about the risk of adverse HDIs, the severity of HDIs, and the appropriate intervals between drug doses. They would like to receive relevant HDI alerts. Results suggest that government, policy makers, healthcare professionals, and the education system should give attention to HDIs and improve health professional-patient communication. Further research should also be conducted on the understanding and practices of CAM practitioners in China. Trial Registration: CRD42022324777 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails).</p>","PeriodicalId":20110,"journal":{"name":"Phytotherapy Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Phytotherapy Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.8384","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of the study was to understand healthcare professionals, pharmacists, and patients perspectives and experiences on clinical practice of herb-drug interactions (HDIs). A systematic review of qualitative studies was conduct. 10 electronic databases were searched from inception through September 2023. Qualitative studies, mixed-method studies, and unstructured or semi-structured cross-sectional surveys focused on healthcare professionals, pharmacists and patients' perspectives, attitudes, clinical practice behaviors, and information needs regarding HDI were included. Thematic synthesis employed Nvivo 12 software. Of 6655 studies identified, 1267 full-text articles were retrieved. Of these, 18 studies conducted in 11 countries/regions were eligible for inclusion, involving 1273 patients, 302 healthcare professionals, and 230 pharmacists. Five over-arching explanatory themes were identified: perspectives, attitudes, practices, experiences, expectations, and information needs. Complementary and alternative (CAM) physicians, pharmacists, and general practitioners were considered by patients to possess the ability or responsibility to assess potential HDIs. Pharmacists yet encountered difficulties due to conflicting information sources and inadequate training. Healthcare professionals, including pharmacists, usually only assessed HDIs when they were deemed to cause serious adverse effects. Regarding expectations and information needs, patients were particularly concerned about the risk of adverse HDIs, the severity of HDIs, and the appropriate intervals between drug doses. They would like to receive relevant HDI alerts. Results suggest that government, policy makers, healthcare professionals, and the education system should give attention to HDIs and improve health professional-patient communication. Further research should also be conducted on the understanding and practices of CAM practitioners in China. Trial Registration: CRD42022324777 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医护人员和患者对草药-药物相互作用的观点、经验和做法:定性研究的系统回顾。
本研究旨在了解医护人员、药剂师和患者对草药与药物相互作用(HDIs)临床实践的观点和经验。本研究对定性研究进行了系统回顾。检索了从开始到 2023 年 9 月的 10 个电子数据库。其中包括定性研究、混合方法研究、非结构化或半结构化横断面调查,重点关注医疗保健专业人员、药剂师和患者对 HDI 的观点、态度、临床实践行为和信息需求。采用 Nvivo 12 软件进行了专题综合。在确定的 6655 项研究中,检索到 1267 篇全文文章。其中,在 11 个国家/地区进行的 18 项研究符合纳入条件,涉及 1273 名患者、302 名医护人员和 230 名药剂师。研究确定了五大解释性主题:观点、态度、实践、经验、期望和信息需求。患者认为辅助和替代疗法(CAM)医生、药剂师和全科医生有能力或有责任评估潜在的人类发展指数。药剂师却因信息来源冲突和培训不足而遇到困难。包括药剂师在内的专业医护人员通常只在认为人类免疫缺损病毒会导致严重不良反应时才对其进行评估。在期望和信息需求方面,患者尤其关注不良 HDI 的风险、HDI 的严重程度以及两次服药之间的适当间隔。他们希望收到相关的人类发展指数警报。研究结果表明,政府、政策制定者、医护人员和教育系统应重视人类发展指数,并改善医护人员与患者之间的沟通。此外,还应对中国中医师的理解和实践进行进一步研究。试验注册:CRD42022324777 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails).
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Phytotherapy Research
Phytotherapy Research 医学-药学
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
5.60%
发文量
325
审稿时长
2.6 months
期刊介绍: Phytotherapy Research is an internationally recognized pharmacological journal that serves as a trailblazing resource for biochemists, pharmacologists, and toxicologists. We strive to disseminate groundbreaking research on medicinal plants, pushing the boundaries of knowledge and understanding in this field. Our primary focus areas encompass pharmacology, toxicology, and the clinical applications of herbs and natural products in medicine. We actively encourage submissions on the effects of commonly consumed food ingredients and standardized plant extracts. We welcome a range of contributions including original research papers, review articles, and letters. By providing a platform for the latest developments and discoveries in phytotherapy, we aim to support the advancement of scientific knowledge and contribute to the improvement of modern medicine.
期刊最新文献
Comprehensive Insights Into the Combinatorial Uses of Selected Phytochemicals in Colorectal Cancer Prevention and Treatment: Isothiocyanates, Quinones, Carotenoids, and Alkaloids. Emodin Inhibits AIM2 Inflammasome Activation via Modulating K27-Linked Polyubiquitination to Attenuate Renal Fibrosis. Resveratrol Bioavailability After Oral Administration: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trial Data. Exploring the Role of Herbal Compounds in Skin Aging: A Systematic Review of Topical Approaches. Perspectives, Experiences, and Practices of Healthcare Professionals and Patients Towards Herb-Drug Interaction: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1