Mandatory medication content in the curricula of six health care personnel types with patient contact in Denmark

Community Pharmacy Staff's Knowledge, Educational Needs, and Barriers Related to Counseling Cancer Patients and Cancer Survivors in Denmark

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to determine Danish community pharmacy staff's knowledge, educational needs, and barriers when communicating with cancer patients/survivors. Furthermore, the study investigated whether pharmacy staff was interested in participating in education about cancer.

METHODS

A cross-sectional questionnaire survey was conducted among community pharmacy staff (pharmacists and pharmaconomists) in Denmark. Descriptive and bivariate (t-test and chi-square) statistics were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

In total, 134 staff members responded to the questionnaire. Their self-reported knowledge of cancer-related topics was between 'very little knowledge' and 'some knowledge'. The most well-known topics concerned risk factors for cancer and side effects from cancer treatments. The importance of learning more about the same topics was rated between 'important' and 'very important'. The largest barriers identified in counseling cancer patients/survivors were a lack of knowledge about cancer, a focus on healthcare problems other than cancer, and a traditional view of community pharmacies as a place to pick up medication. Pharmacy staff expressed interest in participating in educational programs about cancer treatment (91.0%), communication with cancer patients (88.1%), and late effects of cancer (93.3%).

CONCLUSION

Community pharmacy staff show interest in participating in education regarding cancer, but need more knowledge to properly counsel cancer patients and survivors at the community pharmacies. This important barrier should be addressed in future educational programs for community pharmacy staff.

Interchangeability of biosimilars: A study of expert views and visions regarding the science and substitution

Healthcare systems have reached a critical point regarding the question of whether biosimilar substitution should become common practice. To move the discussion forward, the study objective was to investigate the views of experts from medicines agencies and the pharmaceutical industry on the science underpinning interchangeability of biosimilars. We conducted an empirical qualitative study using semi-structured interviews informed by a cross-disciplinary approach encompassing regulatory science, law, and pharmaceutical policy. In total 25 individuals with experience within biologics participated during September 2018-August 2019. Eight participants were EU national medicines authority regulators, and 17 had pharmaceutical industry background: five from two originator-only companies, four from two companies with both biosimilar and originator products, and eight from seven biosimilar-only companies. Two analysts independently conducted inductive content analysis, resulting in data-driven themes capturing the meaning of the data. The participants reported that interchangeability was more than a scientific question of likeness between biosimilar and reference products: it also pertained to regulatory practices and trust. Participants were overall confident in the science behind exchanging biosimilar products for the reference products via switching, i.e., with physician involvement. However, their opinions differed regarding the scientific risk associated with biosimilar substitution, i.e., without physician involvement. Almost all participants saw no need for additional scientific data to support substitution. Moreover, the participants did not believe that switching studies, as required in the US, were appropriate for obtaining scientific certainty due to their small size. It is unclear why biosimilar switching is viewed as scientifically safer than substitution; therefore, we expect greater policy debate on biosimilar substitution in the near future. We urge European and UK policymakers and regulators to clarify their visions for biosimilar substitution; the positions of these two frontrunners are likely to influence other jurisdictions on the future of biosimilar use.