Nyein Chan, Kaung Su Lin, Nyein Chan Aung, Moe Kyaw, Myat Khaing, Tin Moe Mya, Khin Phyu Pyar, Tin Maung Hlaing
A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted among participants who attended to outpatient department Number 2 Defence Services General Hospital. The objective is to describe understanding of prescription from health care providers to patients. The study recruited participants by using simple random sampling and pre-tested questionnaire from August to September 2014. The participants were age between 17 and 77 years and the mean age was 47.27 (SD 11.67) years. Among 194 participants, 99 (51%) were male and 95 (49%) were female. The participants who came to hospital for themselves (93.3%), for husband/wife (2.1%), for their children (1%) and for parent (3.6%). The participants who went to the specialist doctors (59.3%) and medical officer (25.8%) and the remainders (14.9%) did not know which doctors treated to them. Although the participants (87.6%) could answer their diagnosis, 12.4% of participants could not answer it. The time given for explanation of prescription was between 1 and 20 minutes and the mean time was 5.5 (SD 4.26) minutes. While 68% of the participants could answer at least one pill of the prescribed drugs, 32 % of participants could not answer it. Furthermore, the participants (87.6%) knew well about dosing frequency of pills that they took. But 4.6% of participants knew about dosing frequency of one or more pills and the remainders (7.7%) did not know about it. Most of the prescribers (74.7%) did not explain adverse reaction of pills; only 25.3% of prescribers explained it. There was association between patients’ understanding of medical prescription and age group and gender. Despite the doctors and nursing staffs prescribing clearly and giving more time for explanation of prescription, some of the participants do not know it. Thus, the prescribers should ask how to take the pills after the patients had received the pills and explain well about the adverse reaction of the pills.
PDFShare this article
Journal of General Practice received 1047 citations as per Google Scholar report