Factors affecting consumers' decisions on the use of nutraceuticals: a systematic review

There is a high and increasing global prevalence of nutraceuticals use. This study aims to systematically review and critically appraise all available evidence to identify the factors affecting consumers’ decisions in taking nutraceuticals. Questionnaire, interview or focus group studies which directly reported factors affecting consumers’ decisions in using nutraceuticals were included. A thematic synthesis method was employed to synthesis the findings from the included studies. Out of the 76 studies included, the key factors identified as the most important factors motivating consumers to take nutraceuticals were the perceived health benefits and safety of nutraceuticals, as well as the advice from healthcare professionals, friends and family. The identified barriers to take nutraceuticals were a lack of belief in the health benefit of nutraceuticals, the high cost of nutraceuticals and consumers’ lack of knowledge about nutraceuticals. As a chief course of recommendation for the use of nutraceuticals, healthcare professionals should strive to utilise reliable information from clinical evidence to help consumers in making an informed decision in using nutraceuticals. Future studies should explore the possible ways to improve channelling clinical evidence information of nutraceuticals to the public

Methodological approaches for assessing certainty of the evidence in umbrella reviews: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION: The number of umbrella reviews (URs) that compiled systematic reviews and meta-analysis (SR-MAs) has increased dramatically over recent years. No formal guidance for assessing the certainty of evidence in URs of meta-analyses exists nowadays. URs of non-interventional studies help establish evidence linking exposure to certain health outcomes in a population. This study aims to identify and describe the methodological approaches for assessing the certainty of the evidence in published URs of non-interventions. METHODS: We searched from 3 databases including PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library from May 2010 to September 2021. We included URs that included SR-MAs of studies with non-interventions. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data. We compared URs characteristics stratified by publication year, journal ranking, journal impact factor using Chi-square test. RESULTS: Ninety-nine URs have been included. Most were SR-MAs of observational studies evaluating association of non-modifiable risk factors with some outcomes. Only half (56.6%) of the included URs assessed the certainty of the evidence. The most frequently used criteria is credibility assessment (80.4%), followed by GRADE approach (14.3%). URs published in journals with higher journal impact factor assessed certainty of evidence than URs published in lower impact group (77.1 versus 37.2% respectively, p < 0.05). However, criteria for credibility assessment used in four of the seven URs that were published in top ranking journals were slightly varied. CONCLUSIONS: Half of URs of MAs of non-interventional studies have assessed the certainty of the evidence, in which criteria for credibility assessment was the commonly used method. Guidance and standards are required to ensure the methodological rigor and consistency of certainty of evidence assessment for URs

Thai pharmacists' understanding, attitudes, and perceived barriers related to providing pharmaceutical care

10.2146/ajhp060054American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy63212144-2150AHSP

A Preference-Based Value Assessment of the Fear of COVID-19 Contagion

Nabin Poudel, Surachat Ngorsuraches Department of Health Outcomes Research and Policy, Harrison College of Pharmacy, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USACorrespondence: Surachat Ngorsuraches, Department of Health Outcomes Research and Policy, Harrison College of Pharmacy, Auburn University, 4306A Walker Building, Auburn, AL, 36849, USA, Tel +1 334 844 8357, Fax +1 334 844 8307, Email [email protected]: To assess the preference-based value of the fear of COVID-19 contagion.Patients and Methods: We conducted a web-based, cross-sectional discrete choice experiment among 544 US adults. We used a Bayesian efficient design to generate choice sets. Each choice set comprised two hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine options characterized by seven attributes: chance of COVID-19 infection, chance of having severe symptoms from COVID-19 infection, vaccine protection duration, chance of mild to moderate adverse events from vaccination, chance of serious adverse events from vaccination, chance of future exposure to COVID-19 after vaccination, and out-of-pocket cost. We used mixed logit (ML) and latent class (LC) models to analyze data. Furthermore, we calculated the willingness-to-pay for eliminating the chance of future exposure to COVID-19, shedding light on the value attributed to the fear of contagion.Results: The ML model demonstrated all attributes, including the chance of future exposure to COVID-19, were statistically significant. The participants were willing to pay approximately &dollar;13,046 to eliminate the chance of future exposure to COVID-19 or their fear of contagion when COVID-19 was still pandemic. The LC model unveiled two participant classes with distinct preference weights for the chance of future exposure to COVID-19 and out-of-pocket cost attributes. Nevertheless, the chance of future exposure to COVID-19 exposure held a significant degree of importance in both classes.Conclusion: The chance of future exposure to COVID-19 exposure or fear of contagion was a significant element in the value assessment of COVID-19 vaccines. Further studies should be conducted to verify the value of fear of contagion and include it in the value assessment of healthcare technologies for infectious diseases.Keywords: COVID-19, discrete choice experiment, fear of contagion, patient preferenc