First insights into the current practice, knowledge, and attitudes of community pharmacists regarding sexual adverse drug reactions: a cross-sectional survey

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionSexual function can be negatively influenced by adverse drug reactions (ADRs) potentially caused by >300 drugs. These sexual ADRs (sADRs) can lead to low adherence and decreased quality of life. Physicians are known to barely discuss sexual function. Pharmacists also have an important role in informing and advising patients on ADRs, but it is unknown how community pharmacists deal with sADRs.AimsThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the current practice, attitudes, and knowledge of community pharmacists about informing, detecting, and discussing sADRs.MethodsAn online survey with 31 questions was sent to all 1932 pharmacy members of the Royal Dutch Pharmacists Association. The survey was modified from previous surveys that questioned different medical disciplines on their practice, attitudes, and knowledge of sexual function related to their fields. Questions were added on pharmacists’ practice concerning ADRs in general.ResultsA total of 97 (5%) pharmacists responded. During first dispenses of drugs, 64 (66%) informed patients on a selection of common ADRs. Almost all (n = 93, 97%) discussed diarrhea or constipation in at least half of the related occasions, whereas 26 to 31 (27%-33%) discussed sADRs. The sADRs for high-risk drugs were more often named at first than at second dispenses (n = 61 [71%] vs n = 28 [32%]). Pharmacy technicians were generally considered not to discuss sADRs (n = 73, 76%; never or in less than half of the occasions). Lack of privacy (n = 54, 57%) and language barriers (n = 45, 47%) were the most acknowledged barriers to discuss sADRs. Moreover, 46% (n = 45) considered their knowledge insufficient to discuss sADRs. Responsibility for informing, advising, and detecting sADRs was most often attributed to pharmacy technicians (n = 59, 62%), pharmacists (n = 46, 48%), and patients (n = 75, 80%), respectively.ConclusionThis study shows that one-third of pharmacists and two-thirds of pharmacy technicians barely talked about sADRs during first dispenses for high-risk drugs. The low response rate suggests that mostly interested pharmacists responded, thus likely overestimating the sADR discussion rate. To provide patients with unique opportunities to discuss sADRs in community pharmacies, more attention is needed for raising awareness about the topic among pharmacists and for barriers such as the presence of other clients and limited knowledge about sADRs.