Cross-sectional survey evaluated pharmacists’ demonstration skills for intranasal corticosteroid sprays, indicating training gaps.
BACKGROUND Allergic rhinitis is a common condition affecting up to 40% of people worldwide, with a notably high prevalence in South Asia. The primary treatment for moderate to severe allergic rhinitis is intranasal corticosteroid sprays, typically demonstrated to patients by registered pharmacists. However, many patients do not use these sprays correctly. OBJECTIVE This study evaluated the proficiency of pharmacists in demonstrating the correct technique for using intranasal corticosteroid sprays and the factors contributing to proper technique. METHODS In a cross-sectional survey of 365 registered pharmacists in the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal, a trained observer utilized a standardized 12-step checklist to assess each pharmacist’s technique for using intranasal corticosteroid sprays. Demographics, education, experience, previous training, and instructional materials use were recorded. Proficiency was classified as “adequate” if more than 6 out of 12 marks were obtained. RESULTS Out of 365 pharmacists, 65.5% were male, and approximately 59% were aged 26 or younger. About 70% of pharmacists hold a diploma in pharmacy. More than half of the pharmacists demonstrated inadequate technique, while 47.1% showed adequate skill overall. However, only 6% could demonstrate all 5 critical steps. The likelihood of providing appropriate counselling on the use of intranasal corticosteroid sprays was significantly correlated with male gender, older age, use of educational materials, conducting moderate counselling sessions weekly, and higher qualifications. CONCLUSIONS More than half of the registered pharmacists in Nepal demonstrated inadequate technique of intranasal corticosteroid sprays. There is a strong need for educational intervention and policy change for improved proficiency. CLINICALTRIAL
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chaudhary et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: