Pharmacists’ Knowledge, Perception, and Prescribing Practice of Probiotics in the UAE: A Cross-Sectional Study
by
, and
Maram O. Abbas
1,2
,
Hanan Ahmed
3, 
Eisha Hamid
3,
Dyshania Padayachee
3,
Menah Talla Abdulbadia
3,
Sohila Khalid
3,
Ahmed Abuelhana
4 and
Bazigha K. Abdul Rasool
3,*
1
Institute of Public Health, College of Medicine & Health Sciences, UAE University, Al Ain 15551, United Arab Emirates
2
Pharmacy Practice Department, Dubai Pharmacy College for Girls, Dubai P.O. Box 19099, United Arab Emirates
3
Pharmaceutical Sciences Department, Dubai Pharmacy College for Girls, Dubai P.O. Box 19099, United Arab Emirates
4
School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ulster University, Coleraine BT52 1SA, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Antibiotics 2024, 13(10), 967; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13100967
Submission received: 16 September 2024
/
Revised: 10 October 2024
/
Accepted: 12 October 2024
/
Published: 13 October 2024
Abstract
:Background: The human body is a complex and interconnected system where trillions of microorganisms, collectively known as the gut microbiota, coexist with these cells. Besides maintaining digestive health, this relationship also impacts well-being, including immune function, metabolism, and mental health. As frontline healthcare providers, pharmacists are pivotal in promoting the benefits of probiotics for immune support. This study explored pharmacists’ knowledge, perception, and practice behavior in the UAE towards the implication of probiotic application beyond digestive health, such as cardiovascular and mental health impacts and their diverse dosage forms. Method: An online self-administered survey was distributed among pharmacists in the UAE. Data were collected through personal visits to pharmacies, where pharmacists were approached and asked to complete the questionnaire. The sample size included 407 pharmacists, determined using the formula for proportions with a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 29. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographic characteristics and survey responses. The knowledge levels were categorized into poor, moderate, and good. Chi-square analysis was employed to investigate associations between demographic factors and knowledge levels, with a significance level set at p < 0.05, enhancing the robustness of the study’s findings. Results: This study included 407 completed eligible responses. About 63.56% of participants were female, with 52.1% employed in pharmacy chains. While 91.2% of pharmacists recognized probiotics’ role in immune support, only 30% were aware of their cardiovascular benefits. Moreover, chewing gum was the least known dosage form of probiotics, recognized by only 16.7% of respondents. Additionally, only 57% of the participants recognized liposomes as a dosage form. In practice, most pharmacists recommended storing probiotics at room temperature, accounting for 66.6%. The most prevalent misconception encountered in the pharmacy setting was the belief that probiotics are primarily intended for gastrointestinal tract problems, at 79.1% of the respondents. Regarding perception, the agreement was observed regarding the safety of probiotics for all ages. Perceived barriers included the high cost of probiotics, with the majority (86.5%) indicating this as a significant obstacle, while lack of demand was identified as the minor barrier by 64.6%. Additionally, an association was found at a significance level of p < 0.05 with knowledge, gender, educational level, type and location of pharmacy, and source of information. Conclusions: The study highlights knowledge gaps in pharmacists’ understanding of probiotic applications beyond digestive health, particularly cardiovascular health and depression. Targeted educational interventions are necessary to address these gaps. The findings underscore the importance of ongoing professional development for pharmacists, enhancing their role in patient education and the promotion of probiotics for overall health.
1. Introduction
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines probiotics as “live microorganisms which confer a health benefit on the host when administered in adequate amounts” [1]. Since their establishment in 2001, probiotics, including strains like Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium, have been extensively studied for their impact on human health, particularly their role in modulating the gut microbiota [2,3]. They primarily exert their effects by colonizing the gut and modulating its microbial composition, promoting a favorable balance of beneficial bacteria; this intricate interplay between probiotics and the gut microbiota underscores their crucial role in human health [4,5].
Probiotics have a wide range of therapeutic benefits, impacting many different bodily systems and improving overall health. Moreover, they are known for boosting the immune system and helping the body defend against infections and allergies [6,7,8]. One of the probiotics’ most significant benefits is their role in digestive health. Probiotics help maintain intestinal barrier integrity, regulate bowel movements, and alleviate gastrointestinal disorders such as irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease symptoms, infectious diarrhea, antibiotic-associated diarrhea, and ulcerative colitis [9,10,11]. However, their optimal use presents a challenge due to the lack of clear guidelines, making it difficult for family physicians and patients [12].
Research suggests potential health benefits of probiotics, including anti-obesity, anti-diabetic, and anti-cancer effects, as well as possible COVID-19 neutralization, though these benefits are not yet definitively confirmed [13,14]. In addition, emerging research suggests a link between probiotics and mental health, with evidence indicating their potential to alleviate symptoms of anxiety, depression, and stress through interactions with the gut–brain axis [15,16,17].
A recent meta-analysis has concluded that probiotics significantly reduce total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in individuals diagnosed with hypercholesterolemia [18]. This finding holds particular significance, considering that systemic inflammation is a common characteristic of cardiovascular diseases, which are frequently accompanied by risk factors such as hypertension [19]. The potential of probiotics to influence these interconnected pathways indicates a broader therapeutic potential in managing cardiovascular health [20].
Ensuring probiotic stability for clinical use is crucial, and diverse formulation approaches are actively explored to enhance efficacy through various administration routes [21]. Advances in technology, including microencapsulation and nanotechnology, offer sophisticated delivery systems [22]. While oral forms predominate, evolving technology allows for diverse probiotic dosage forms and administration routes [23]. Recent formulation approaches emphasize diverse dosage forms and technologies to optimize probiotic delivery for enhanced therapeutic effectiveness [24].
The general public and healthcare providers should possess comprehensive knowledge about probiotics’ benefits and proper utilization to ensure optimal usage [25,26]. Since probiotics are readily available without a prescription, individuals need to thoroughly understand their potential advantages and the practical methods for their administration. Pharmacists are crucial in educating patients about probiotics, including their potential benefits for digestive health, immune function, and overall well-being. Furthermore, pharmacists occupy a central position in healthcare provision, serving as frontline healthcare providers with a multifaceted role in patient care [27,28].
Pharmacists should be well-versed in evidence-based indications for probiotic use, appropriate dosage recommendations, and potential safety concerns. Studies conducted in various regions, including Saudi, Pakistan, India, and Nigeria, highlighted the need to raise awareness and enhance healthcare providers’ knowledge of probiotics; these studies found low levels of understanding and awareness among healthcare professionals, including pharmacists, emphasizing the importance of targeted education initiatives [29,30,31,32].
Despite the growing popularity and widespread availability of probiotics in pharmacies, there is a lack of comprehensive information regarding pharmacists’ knowledge levels, perceptions, and practices regarding probiotics in the UAE. Therefore, this study aimed to bridge the knowledge gap by investigating pharmacists’ engagement with probiotics in the healthcare context of the UAE.
2. Results
2.1. Demographics
A total of 407 responses were collected for this study. Among the participants, 259 (63.65%) were female. Most participants, 262 (64.4%), fell within the age range of 22 to 30. More than half of the participants, 211 (51.8%), completed their higher education in the UAE. Most participants were affiliated with community pharmacies; 212 (52.1%) were part of chain pharmacies, and 82 (20.1%) were independent institutions. The distribution of participants based on the number of prescriptions dispensed per day showed that the majority, 181 (44.5%), reported dispensing 10–19 prescriptions daily (Table 1).
2.2. Pharmacist Knowledge Concerning Probiotic Uses and Dosage Forms
Regarding knowledge, 388 (95.3%) knew that probiotics consist of different strains of live bacteria, each offering specific health benefits. Likewise, 390 (95.8%) recognized yogurt as a natural source of beneficial bacteria. The least recognized information about probiotics was their role in alleviating depression symptoms, with only 122 (29.9%) participants being aware of this. In terms of dosage forms, capsules, oral powder, and tablets were the most recognized forms, with recognition rates of 376 (92.4%), 318 (78.1%), and 250 (61.4%), respectively. The least recognized delivery system was nanoparticles, identified by only 173 (42.5%) participants (Table 2).
The participants utilized a variety of information sources. The most used source was the workplace (specifically, the pharmacy setting) selected by 321 (78.9%) respondents. Attending conferences and webinars was also popular, with 260 participants (63.9%) relying on these events for information (Figure 1).
2.3. Pharmacist Perception of the Use of Probiotics
Most respondents, 317 (77.9%), believed using probiotics during pregnancy is safe. Additionally, about 262 (64.4%) expressed trust in the safety of probiotics for people of all ages. Interestingly, while participants had high confidence in probiotics’ safety (Figure 2), a considerable portion of 265 (65.1%) believed that the public lacked awareness regarding the benefits and applications of these supplements. Furthermore, an overwhelming majority, 377 (92.6%), showed interest in educational efforts or workshops related to probiotic use (Table 3).
2.4. Pharmacist Practice Concerning Probiotic Recommendation and Prescription
There is variation among pharmacists in terms of selling and prescribing probiotics in their pharmacies, with 162 (39.8%) reporting sales 2–3 times a week and 143 (35.1%) reporting daily sales. When prescribing probiotics to boost patients’ immune systems, many pharmacists prescribe them often (179, 44.0%) or always (107, 26.3%). Regarding storage, 271 (66.6%) pharmacists advise room temperature storage. When patients ask about probiotics, most pharmacists prefer to prescribe a suitable probiotic for their specific condition (307, 75.4%) rather than suggesting natural sources or advising them to consult a physician. Some common misconceptions include the belief that probiotics are only for digestive issues (238, 58.5%) or can replace a healthy diet (160 39.3%). Pharmacists frequently prescribe probiotics for gastrointestinal diseases (231, 56.7%). The most requested dosage forms are capsules and tablets (249, 61.2%) (Table 4).
2.5. Pharmacists Perceived Barriers to the Optimum Use of Probiotics among the Public
The participants identified several potential barriers to the widespread use of probiotics. The top three perceived concerns were the high cost of the probiotic products (352, 86.5%), the lack of insurance coverage for the probiotic and considering it as a treatment (351, 86.2%), and the lack of advice from doctors (344, 84.5%) (Table 5).
2.6. Associations of Knowledge Levels with Demographics and Practice
Most participants, 309 (75.9%), were classified in the moderate knowledge group, followed by the good knowledge group, 71 (17.4%), and the poor knowledge group, 27 (6.6%). Significant associations were found between probiotic knowledge and various demographics. Gender, educational level, type and location of the pharmacy, and source of information all had p-values of less than 0.05, indicating their significance (Table 6).
Further regression analysis, as shown in Table 7, revealed that participants with a Doctorate were significantly more likely to have both moderate (OR = 2.98, p < 0.001) and good knowledge (OR = 7.07, p < 0.001), while those with a Diploma were less likely to have good knowledge (OR = 0.132, p = 0.01). Working in Community Chain Pharmacies was also associated with significantly higher odds of good knowledge (OR = 7.411, p = 0.004). Other factors, such as gender, age, years of experience, and the number of prescriptions filled per day, were not significantly associated with either moderate or good knowledge levels. The reference (ref.) category for knowledge levels is poor knowledge.
3. Discussion
This cross-sectional study investigated pharmacist knowledge, practice, perception, and barriers to probiotics in the UAE. The findings reveal significant knowledge gaps among pharmacists, particularly regarding non-digestive applications of probiotics, and different available dosage forms, which could restrict patient access to the full spectrum of probiotic health benefits. These knowledge deficits are concerning because they may result in missed opportunities to optimize patient care, especially for cardiovascular and mental health conditions, where probiotics have shown promise. The analysis showed that most pharmacists have a moderate level of knowledge about probiotics, and the high cost is a prominent barrier that hinders patient access.
In the current study, most pharmacists firmly understood the fundamental aspects of probiotics. For example, they recognized yogurt as a natural source and understood that probiotics are living microorganisms. However, despite this foundational knowledge, critical gaps remain in understanding the broader clinical applications of probiotics beyond digestive health. A study by Santhanam et al. (2022) on the knowledge of probiotics among dental practitioners produced results consistent with this study’s findings revealing that 70% of participants demonstrated acceptable knowledge levels [33]. However, the finding of Santhanam et al. could not be extrapolated and accurately compared to this study because of the different scope of practice and accessibility between pharmacists and dentists. Interestingly, a global probiotic survey conducted in 30 countries in 2020 involving various healthcare professionals found similar results; about 80% of respondents from each healthcare professional category answered basic knowledge questions correctly. In both this study and the international survey, the use of Lactobacillus acidophilus as a probiotic was well understood, yet the broader therapeutic applications of probiotics were less commonly recognized, suggesting that pharmacists and healthcare professionals may underappreciate the full potential of probiotics on a global scale [30]. Both studies reported high levels of correctness for the use of Lactobacillus acidophilus, with 93.6% accuracy in this study and 92% in the international survey [34]. However, in contrast to these findings, a study conducted in Pakistan in 2021, which assessed healthcare practitioners’ knowledge regarding probiotics, found that only 15.1% of participants demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of probiotics. This highlights significant variations in awareness levels across different regions, emphasizing the need for targeted educational efforts.
However, this study’s findings are concerning as more than half of the participants provided incorrect answers when asked about the specific roles of probiotics, despite the well-established worth of probiotics in respiratory immunity, cardiovascular health, and alleviating depression symptoms [7,35,36]. Several studies have consistently demonstrated improvements in blood pressure, triglycerides, total cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol after probiotic supplementation, highlighting their significant role in enhancing cardiovascular health [37]. Moreover, a systematic review concluded that probiotics show great potential in treating depression [36]. Addressing these knowledge gaps is essential to expanding the use of probiotics beyond gastrointestinal disorders and ensuring that pharmacists can provide comprehensive recommendations, especially for patients at risk of cardiovascular disease or depression.
This study showed that participants with a Doctorate may have greater exposure to advanced education, research, and professional development opportunities, which likely contributes to their higher knowledge levels [38,39]. On the other hand, those with Diplomas may have fewer opportunities for specialized training, impacting their knowledge. Additionally, pharmacists working in community chain pharmacies may receive targeted training or resources related to probiotics, explaining their significantly higher knowledge. Future studies could investigate these potential factors in more detail to better understand and address these disparities.
Regarding gender, although our analysis did not find a significant association between gender and probiotic knowledge, it is possible that societal and professional factors, such as differences in access to continuing education or professional roles, might play a role. While these factors were not directly assessed in our study, future research could explore whether gender-specific educational or professional experiences contribute to variations in knowledge. Understanding these nuances may help in tailoring more effective educational interventions across different demographic groups.
Many studies emphasize the importance of diverse probiotic dosage forms in pharmaceuticals. These varied forms are crucial for optimizing drug delivery, enhancing efficacy and tolerability, and improving patient comfort and convenience [24]. Pharmacists play a pivotal role by knowing the different forms and selecting the most suitable one for each patient’s needs [40,41]. This study examined pharmacists’ awareness of probiotic dosage forms globally. The findings revealed that while many pharmacists were familiar with common forms such as capsules, drops, and tablets, there was less awareness of alternative options like topical gels, creams, sprays, and chewing gum. This gap in knowledge highlights the need for enhanced education on diverse probiotic dosage forms to enable pharmacists to provide more personalized patient care. Additionally, the study evaluated participants’ understanding of various delivery systems used to develop these dosage forms. Our results indicated a significant number of participants expressed confidence in the safety of probiotics. Most believe probiotics are safe for pregnant, immunocompromised, and people of all ages. However, it is essential to note that recent research has revealed potential risks associated with probiotic use, especially among certain vulnerable groups [42]. Regulatory bodies, including the FDA, have specifically issued warnings against the use of probiotics in hospitalized preterm infants due to potential risks of adverse effects. Additionally, some studies highlight concerns about probiotic use in other high-risk populations, such as pregnant women, immunocompromised individuals, and those with structural heart disease. These warnings emphasize the need for caution and individualized assessment when considering probiotic use in these vulnerable groups [43,44,45]. Moreover, the evidence regarding the effectiveness of probiotics in specific conditions affecting pregnant women, such as gestational diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, and preeclampsia, is inconclusive [46]. These findings emphasize the importance of carefully considering probiotic use, particularly in vulnerable populations.
Participants in this study commonly observed a significant deficiency in public awareness about the optimal use of probiotics, a concern supported by existing research. For instance, a 2018 survey conducted by Hiba Barqawi et al. in the UAE revealed that the general public possessed limited knowledge about probiotics [47]. Similarly, research on gastrointestinal patients indicated that most had never used probiotics, and among those who had, the majority relied on products prescribed by healthcare professionals [48]. These findings highlight the urgent need for improved public education on probiotics to foster better understanding and more effective use.
The study revealed that a substantial majority of participants endorse the use of probiotics to boost immune function. Despite the broad evidence supporting the benefits of probiotics for various health conditions, most probiotics dispensed in surveyed pharmacies were aimed at addressing gastrointestinal (GI) issues. This observation is consistent with findings from multiple studies conducted in diverse healthcare settings worldwide, which also underscore the prevalent focus on GI complications in probiotic prescription practices and counseling [49,50].
When it comes to counseling, it is crucial to ensure that patients are appropriately informed about the storage conditions for prescribed medications. However, this study’s results indicate that most pharmacists advise patients to store probiotics at room temperature, which may contradict optimal storage practices. Nevertheless, product labels usually provide specific instructions, and room temperature storage may align with these recommendations. Research by Fenster et al. 2019 highlights the variability in storage requirements among different probiotic products, with some requiring refrigeration during manufacturing [51].
Additionally, recommendations regarding the timing of probiotic consumption, such as taking them before meals, align with research findings suggesting that bacterial survival rates are higher when probiotics are ingested before meals due to slower passage through the stomach [52].
The primary barrier to the general public’s optimal use of probiotics is economic; high costs and lack of insurance coverage for probiotic prescriptions are particularly prominent concerns. This observation is consistent with the survey conducted by Kolady et al. 2018, in which participants of higher-income groups tended to purchase more probiotics than those with lower incomes [53]. Various studies indicated that probiotics may not consistently demonstrate cost-effectiveness, especially in hospitalized patients. However, they have been proven to improve quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and reduce disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for specific conditions such as diarrhea [54,55].
Furthermore, in the UAE, probiotic coverage varies depending on specific insurance plans and the type of probiotic supplement. Generally, over-the-counter probiotics are not covered [56]. However, it is essential to note that probiotics are classified as dietary supplements and are not regulated by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This lack of regulation leads to variability in product quality, purity, and viability.
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Study Design
A prospective cross-sectional national survey-based study was conducted between October 2023 and February 2024 to investigate and explore pharmacists’ knowledge, perception, and practice patterns regarding probiotic dosage in the UAE. The survey was formatted as an online, self-administered questionnaire using Google Forms and distributed in person within pharmacy settings across all emirates in the UAE. Pharmacists in diverse pharmacy settings were cordially invited to participate in this study.
4.2. Data Collection Sheet
The questionnaire consisted of five sections comprising 20 questions and was investigated to take no more than eight minutes to complete. It was comprised entirely of closed-ended, multiple-selection questions designed to collect quantitative data. It was divided into five distinct sections: Section #1 (Demographics): Collected basic demographic information, including years of experience, pharmacist practice setting, age, and gender; Section #2 (Knowledge): Assessed pharmacists’ knowledge of probiotics, including their benefits, uses, and available formulations; Section #3 (Perception): Gathered insights into pharmacists’ views on the efficacy and safety of probiotics; Section #4 (Practice): Explored how pharmacists integrate probiotics into their clinical practice; and Section #5 (Barriers): Identified challenges pharmacists encounter when prescribing or recommending probiotics. Appendix A.
The items in the questionnaire were adapted from a previous research study and were subjected to a pilot test with a group of thirty-five pharmacists. The reliability of the questionnaire was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, resulting in a score of 0.9, indicating a high level of internal consistency. Additionally, the questionnaire underwent independent validation by two academic professors and two pharmacy practitioners to ensure its content validity and suitability for the study’s objectives. The survey was administered online using Google Forms. Pharmacists were directly approached in their pharmacies, where they were invited to participate by completing the survey on a provided device.
4.3. Sample Size and Sampling
This study focused on pharmacists practicing within the UAE. Inclusion criteria required participants to be actively involved in prescribing and to have direct patient care responsibilities. Pharmacists engaged solely in administrative or compounding roles without patient interaction and those outside the UAE were excluded.
A convenience sampling approach was employed to recruit participants from community and hospital pharmacy settings. This method was chosen due to the logistical challenges of accessing a geographically dispersed population of pharmacists across the UAE. Given the time constraints and the demanding schedules of the pharmacists, convenience sampling was the most efficient and practical method to ensure timely data collection. Data collection was facilitated through personal pharmacy visits and an online self-administered survey. This approach recruited a diverse cohort of pharmacists from various practice settings, enhancing the sample’s representativeness.
The sample size for this study was calculated using the formula for proportions: n = [Z2 * p * (1 − p)]/E2, where n represents the required sample size, Z is the Z-score corresponding to the desired confidence level (e.g., 95% confidence level corresponds to a Z-score of approximately 1.96), p denotes the estimated proportion of pharmacists (utilizing 0.5 for maximum variability due to unavailable estimates), and E signifies the margin of error expressed as a proportion. Assuming a 95% confidence level, a margin of error of 5% (0.05), and a Z value of 1.96, based on this formula, the required sample size was determined to be 371 pharmacists for a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error, assuming a total population of 11,153 pharmacists in the UAE as per the UAE statistics for 2020 [57].
4.4. Ethical Considerations
Ethical approval was obtained from the research and ethics committee of Dubai Pharmacy College before the commencement of the study (Reference number: REC/FD/2023/02). All participants completed the survey voluntarily after providing informed consent to protect their privacy. No identifiers were collected from participants, and all data were kept completely anonymous.
4.5. Data Analysis
SPSS version 29 was employed for data analysis. Knowledge levels derived from the 25 questions were categorized as poor (less than 50%), moderate (50–80%), and good (more than 80%). Descriptive analysis and frequencies were utilized to assess knowledge distribution. Furthermore, a Chi-Square test with a significance level of p < 0.05 was conducted to explore associations between knowledge levels, demographics, and practice.
5. Limitations
This study provides valuable insights into pharmacists’ knowledge and practices regarding probiotics in the UAE, with strong internal consistency in the survey tool enhancing the reliability of the results. However, the use of convenience sampling and a higher concentration of participants from Dubai may limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the focus on pharmacists excludes other healthcare professionals, and the use of an online survey may introduce social desirability and recall bias. Investigators recommend that future studies implement stricter control measures, such as supervised completion of surveys or the incorporation of mixed methods such as interviews or focus groups, to mitigate this bias and improve the reliability of the data collected. Despite these limitations, the study offers important contributions and lays the groundwork for further research.
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
In conclusion, this study provides valuable insights into pharmacists’ knowledge, perceptions, and practices regarding probiotics. Significant knowledge gaps were identified, particularly in the areas of cardiovascular health and the role of probiotics in mental health, such as treating depression. While pharmacists are generally aware of probiotics’ digestive health benefits, their understanding of broader applications remains limited. To address these gaps, targeted educational interventions are essential to improve pharmacists’ awareness and knowledge, allowing them to better guide patients on the diverse health benefits of probiotics, including immune support.
Public awareness campaigns are also necessary to enhance consumers’ understanding of probiotics’ advantages and promote their optimal use. Addressing economic challenges, such as the high cost and lack of probiotic insurance coverage, requires collaboration among stakeholders, including government entities and insurance companies. This collaboration is crucial for developing reimbursement strategies and advocating for insurance coverage, which can make probiotics more accessible and affordable to the public under economically practical conditions.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: B.K.A.R.; methodology: H.A., M.O.A. and A.A.; validation: B.K.A.R. and A.A.; data analysis: M.O.A. and E.H.; investigation: S.K., H.A., D.P., M.T.A. and E.H.; data curation: S.K., H.A., D.P., M.T.A. and E.H.; writing—original draft preparation: M.O.A., E.H. and D.P.; writing—review and editing: B.K.A.R., A.A. and M.O.A.; and visualization: M.O.A., E.H. and A.A.; funding acquisition: B.K.A.R.; supervision: B.K.A.R. and M.O.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
Open access funding is provided by Dubai Pharmacy College for Girls, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted following the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Dubai Pharmacy College for Girls, Reference #: REC/UG/2023/05, 11 October 2023.
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are stored securely at Dubai Pharmacy College (DPC) and are available upon request from the corresponding author. Due to privacy and institutional regulations, the data are not publicly accessible.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Appendix A. Questionnaire
| Demographics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Knowledge |
|
|
|
|
|
| Perception |
|
| Practice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Barriers |
|
References
- Probiotics and Prebiotics|World Gastroenterology Organisation. Available online: https://www.worldgastroenterology.org/guidelines/probiotics-and-prebiotics (accessed on 25 July 2024).
- Pavlidou, E.; Fasoulas, A.; Mantzorou, M.; Giaginis, C. Clinical Evidence on the Potential Beneficial Effects of Probiotics and Prebiotics in Cardiovascular Disease. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 15898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Latif, A.; Shehzad, A.; Niazi, S.; Zahid, A.; Ashraf, W.; Iqbal, M.W.; Rehman, A.; Riaz, T.; Aadil, R.M.; Khan, I.M.; et al. Probiotics: Mechanism of Action, Health Benefits and Their Application in Food Industries. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1216674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Olvera-Rosales, L.B.; Cruz-Guerrero, A.E.; Ramírez-Moreno, E.; Quintero-Lira, A.; Contreras-López, E.; Jaimez-Ordaz, J.; Castañeda-Ovando, A.; Añorve-Morga, J.; Calderón-Ramos, Z.G.; Arias-Rico, J.; et al. Impact of the Gut Microbiota Balance on the Health-Disease Relationship: The Importance of Consuming Probiotics and Prebiotics. Foods 2021, 10, 1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ma, T.; Shen, X.; Shi, X.; Sakandar, H.A.; Quan, K.; Li, Y.; Jin, H.; Kwok, L.Y.; Zhang, H.; Sun, Z. Targeting Gut Microbiota and Metabolism as the Major Probiotic Mechanism—An Evidence-Based Review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2023, 138, 178–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yousefi, B.; Eslami, M.; Ghasemian, A.; Kokhaei, P.; Salek Farrokhi, A.; Darabi, N. Probiotics Importance and Their Immunomodulatory Properties. J. Cell. Physiol. 2019, 234, 8008–8018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazziotta, C.; Tognon, M.; Martini, F.; Torreggiani, E.; Rotondo, J.C. Probiotics Mechanism of Action on Immune Cells and Beneficial Effects on Human Health. Cells 2023, 12, 184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thoda, C.; Touraki, M. Immunomodulatory Properties of Probiotics and Their Derived Bioactive Compounds. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanders, M.E.; Merenstein, D.J.; Reid, G.; Gibson, G.R.; Rastall, R.A. Probiotics and Prebiotics in Intestinal Health and Disease: From Biology to the Clinic. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2019, 16, 605–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, Y.; Zhu, L.; Chen, J.; Tang, X.; Pan, M.; Yuan, W.; Wang, H. Efficacy of Probiotic Compounds in Relieving Constipation and Their Colonization in Gut Microbiota. Molecules 2022, 27, 666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilkins, T.; Sequoia, J. Probiotics for Gastrointestinal Conditions: A Summary of the Evidence. Am. Fam. Physician 2017, 96, 170–178. [Google Scholar]
- Hill, C.; Guarner, F.; Reid, G.; Gibson, G.R.; Merenstein, D.J.; Pot, B.; Morelli, L.; Canani, R.B.; Flint, H.J.; Salminen, S.; et al. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics Consensus Statement on the Scope and Appropriate Use of the Term Probiotic. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2014, 11, 506–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wiciński, M.; Gębalski, J.; Gołębiewski, J.; Malinowski, B. Probiotics for the Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Humans—A Review of Clinical Trials. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Śliżewska, K.; Markowiak-Kopeć, P.; Śliżewska, W. The Role of Probiotics in Cancer Prevention. Cancers 2020, 13, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Messaoudi, M.; Lalonde, R.; Violle, N.; Javelot, H.; Desor, D.; Nejdi, A.; Bisson, J.-F.; Rougeot, C.; Pichelin, M.; Cazaubiel, M.; et al. Assessment of Psychotropic-like Properties of a Probiotic Formulation (Lactobacillus Helveticus R0052 and Bifidobacterium Longum R0175) in Rats and Human Subjects. Br. J. Nutr. 2011, 105, 755–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, R.T.; Walsh, R.F.L.; Sheehan, A.E. Prebiotics and Probiotics for Depression and Anxiety: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Clinical Trials. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2019, 102, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ng, Q.X.; Peters, C.; Ho, C.Y.X.; Lim, D.Y.; Yeo, W.-S. A Meta-Analysis of the Use of Probiotics to Alleviate Depressive Symptoms. J. Affect. Disord. 2018, 228, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, J.; Wu, C.; Zhang, C.; Zhao, J.; Yu, L.; Zhang, H.; Narbad, A.; Chen, W.; Zhai, Q. Effects of Probiotic Supplementation on Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Hypercholesterolemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trial. J. Funct. Foods 2020, 74, 104177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alfaddagh, A.; Martin, S.S.; Leucker, T.M.; Michos, E.D.; Blaha, M.J.; Lowenstein, C.J.; Jones, S.R.; Toth, P.P. Inflammation and Cardiovascular Disease: From Mechanisms to Therapeutics. Am. J. Prev. Cardiol. 2020, 4, 100130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Romero, M.; Duarte, J. Probiotics and Prebiotics in Cardiovascular Diseases. Nutrients 2023, 15, 3686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baral, K.C.; Bajracharya, R.; Lee, S.H.; Han, H.-K. Advancements in the Pharmaceutical Applications of Probiotics: Dosage Forms and Formulation Technology. Int. J. Nanomed. 2021, 16, 7535–7556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vivek, K.; Mishra, S.; Pradhan, R.C.; Nagarajan, M.; Kumar, P.K.; Singh, S.S.; Manvi, D.; Gowda, N.N. A Comprehensive Review on Microencapsulation of Probiotics: Technology, Carriers and Current Trends. Appl. Food Res. 2023, 3, 100248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, G.; Chen, Y.; Xia, Y.; Song, X.; Ai, L. Characteristics of Probiotic Preparations and Their Applications. Foods 2022, 11, 2472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Govender, M.; Choonara, Y.E.; Kumar, P.; du Toit, L.C.; van Vuuren, S.; Pillay, V. A Review of the Advancements in Probiotic Delivery: Conventional vs. Non-Conventional Formulations for Intestinal Flora Supplementation. AAPS PharmSciTech 2014, 15, 29–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hasosah, M.; Qurashi, M.; Balkhair, A.; Alzahrani, Z.; Alabbasi, A.; Alzahrani, M.; Alnahdi, W.; Shafei, S.; Bafaqih, M.; Khan, M. Knowledge, Attitudes, and Understanding of Probiotics among Pediatricians in Different Regions of Saudi Arabia. BMC Med. Educ. 2021, 21, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nguyen, M.; Ferge, K.K.; Vaughn, A.R.; Burney, W.; Teng, L.H.; Pan, A.; Nguyen, V.; Sivamani, R.K. Probiotic Supplementation and Food Intake and Knowledge Among Patients and Consumers. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2020, 12, 824–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eldooma, I.; Maatoug, M.; Yousif, M. Outcomes of Pharmacist-Led Pharmaceutical Care Interventions Within Community Pharmacies: Narrative Review. Integr. Pharm. Res. Pract. 2023, 12, 113–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rajiah, K.; Sivarasa, S.; Maharajan, M.K. Impact of Pharmacists’ Interventions and Patients’ Decision on Health Outcomes in Terms of Medication Adherence and Quality Use of Medicines among Patients Attending Community Pharmacies: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alnefaie, G.O.; Alammari, R.M.; Alzahrani, A.A.; Althobaiti, R.M.; Althomali, F.A.; Alsherbi, N.A.; Khalifa, E.A. Health Professionals’ Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Regarding Probiotics Use in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study. Med. Sci. 2023, 27, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arshad, M.S.; Saqlain, M.; Majeed, A.; Imran, I.; Saeed, H.; Saleem, M.U.; Abrar, M.A.; Islam, M.; Hashmi, F.; Akbar, M.; et al. Cross-Sectional Study to Assess the Healthcare Professionals’ Knowledge, Attitude and Practices about Probiotics Use in Pakistan. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e047494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soni, R.; Tank, K.; Jain, N. Knowledge, Attitude and Practice of Health Professionals about Probiotic Use in Ahmedabad, India. Nutr. Food Sci. 2018, 48, 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oloton, E.; Obaseki, E. Quantitative Assessment of Available Probiotic Products in Community Pharmacies in Benin City, Nigeria. Trop. J. Pharm. Res. 2020, 19, 1511–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santhanam, V.; Devi, M.; Aravindan, R.; Suganya, R.; Aroumugam, S.; Babu, M.A. Awareness of Probiotics among Dental Practitioners of Puducherry-A Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study. J. Oral Maxillofac. Pathol. 2022, 26, 597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fijan, S.; Frauwallner, A.; Varga, L.; Langerholc, T.; Rogelj, I.; Lorber, M.; Lewis, P.; Bržan, P.P. Health Professionals’ Knowledge of Probiotics: An International Survey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dixon, A.; Robertson, K.; Yung, A.; Que, M.; Randall, H.; Wellalagodage, D.; Cox, T.; Robertson, D.; Chi, C.; Sun, J. Efficacy of Probiotics in Patients of Cardiovascular Disease Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Curr. Hypertens. Rep. 2020, 22, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, R.; Wang, K.; Hu, J. Effect of Probiotics on Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Nutrients 2016, 8, 483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sun, J.; Buys, N. Effects of Probiotics Consumption on Lowering Lipids and CVD Risk Factors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Ann. Med. 2015, 47, 430–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Long, Y.; Jia, C.; Luo, X.; Sun, Y.; Zuo, W.; Wu, Y.; Wu, Y.; Kaierdebieke, A.; Lin, Z. The Impact of Higher Education on Health Literacy: A Comparative Study between Urban and Rural China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dacey, M.; Arnstein, F.; Kennedy, M.A.; Wolfe, J.; Phillips, E.M. The Impact of Lifestyle Medicine Continuing Education on Provider Knowledge, Attitudes, and Counseling Behaviors. Med. Teach. 2013, 35, e1149–e1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Luchen, G.G.; Hall, K.K.; Hough, K.R. The Role of Community Pharmacists in Patient Safety; PSNet [Internet]; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, US Department of Health and Human Services: Rockville, MD, USA, 2021.
- Ilardo, M.L.; Speciale, A. The Community Pharmacist: Perceived Barriers and Patient-Centered Care Communication. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kothari, D.; Patel, S.; Kim, S.-K. Probiotic Supplements Might Not Be Universally-Effective and Safe: A Review. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2019, 111, 537–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- US FDA. Warning Regarding Use of Probiotics in Preterm Infants; US FDA: Rockville, MD, USA, 2023; pp. 5–6.
- Doron, S.; Snydman, D.R. Risk and Safety of Probiotics. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2015, 60 (Suppl. 2), S129–S134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sanders, M.E.; Akkermans, L.M.A.; Haller, D.; Hammerman, C.; Heimbach, J.; Hörmannsperger, G.; Huys, G.; Levy, D.D.; Lutgendorff, F.; Mack, D.; et al. Safety Assessment of Probiotics for Human Use. Gut Microbes 2010, 1, 164–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu, R.; Luan, J.; Hu, J.; Li, Z. Effect of Probiotics on Pregnancy Outcomes in Gestational Diabetes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2024, 310, 769–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barqawi, H.J.; Adra, S.F.; Ramzi, H.R.; Abouaggour, M.A.; Almehairi, S.K. Evaluating the Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of the UAE Community on Microbiota Composition and the Main Factors Affecting It: A Cross-Sectional Study. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e047869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lynch, E.; Troob, J.; Lebwohl, B.; Freedberg, D.E. Who Uses Probiotics and Why? A Survey Study Conducted among General Gastroenterology Patients. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2021, 8, e000742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanna, M.; Ahmad, I.; Yanowitz, T.; Kim, J.; Hunter, C.; DiGeronimo, R.; Ahmad, K.A.; Sullivan, K.; Markel, T.A.; Hair, A.B.; et al. Current Patterns of Probiotic Use in U.S. Neonatal Intensive Care Units: A Multi-Institution Survey. Am. J. Perinatol. 2024, 41 (Suppl. S1), e2658–e2665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Draper, K.V.; Ley, C.; Parsonnet, J. Probiotic Guidelines and Physician Practice: A Cross-Sectional Survey: 992. Off. J. Am. Coll. Gastroenterol. ACG 2016, 111, S431–S432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fenster, K.; Freeburg, B.; Hollard, C.; Wong, C.; Rønhave Laursen, R.; Ouwehand, A.C. The Production and Delivery of Probiotics: A Review of a Practical Approach. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tompkins, T.A.; Mainville, I.; Arcand, Y. The Impact of Meals on a Probiotic during Transit through a Model of the Human Upper Gastrointestinal Tract. Benef. Microbes 2011, 2, 295–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolady, D.E.; Kattelmann, K.; Vukovich, C.; Scaria, J. Awareness and Use of Probiotics among the Millennials in the United States: Drivers and Implications. Funct. Foods Health Dis. 2018, 8, 505–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lenoir-Wijnkoop, I.; Merenstein, D.; Korchagina, D.; Broholm, C.; Sanders, M.E.; Tancredi, D. Probiotics Reduce Health Care Cost and Societal Impact of Flu-like Respiratory Tract Infections in the USA: An Economic Modeling Study. Front. Pharmacol. 2019, 10, 980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shen, N.T.; Leff, J.A.; Schneider, Y.; Crawford, C.V.; Maw, A.; Bosworth, B.; Simon, M.S. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Probiotic Use to Prevent Clostridium Difficile Infection in Hospitalized Adults Receiving Antibiotics. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 2017, 4, ofx148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- de Simone, C. The Unregulated Probiotic Market. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2019, 17, 809–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Statistics and Research Center, Ministry of Health and Prevention (MOHAP). UAE Statistical Annual Report 2020; Ministry of Health and Prevention: Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 2020. Available online: https://mohap.gov.ae/ (accessed on 12 October 2024).
Figure 1.
Participants’ sources of information about probiotics.
Figure 2.
Probiotics safety perception among participants.
Table 1.
Demographic characteristics of participants.
| Variable | N | % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | 259 | 63.65% |
| Male | 148 | 36.4% | |
| Educational Status | Diploma | 115 | 28.3% |
| Pharmacy Sciences Bachelors | 190 | 46.7% | |
| Pharm D | 68 | 16.7% | |
| Master’s degree | 32 | 7.9% | |
| Doctorate or higher | 2 | 0.5% | |
| Country of highest education | UAE | 211 | 51.8% |
| Other Arab countries | 24 | 5.7% | |
| Asia | 136 | 33.5 | |
| Others | 36 | 8.8% | |
| Type of pharmacy | Community Chain Pharmacy | 212 | 52.1% |
| Community Individual Pharmacy | 82 | 20.1% | |
| Hospital pharmacy | 113 | 27.8% | |
| Location of the pharmacy | Abu Dhabi | 13 | 3.2% |
| Ajman | 62 | 16.0% | |
| Dubai | 259 | 63.6% | |
| Fujairah | 2 | 0.5% | |
| Ras Al-Khaimah | 3 | 0.7% | |
| Sharjah | 65 | 16.0% | |
| Number of prescriptions per day in your pharmacy | Less than 10 | 109 | 26.8% |
| 10–19 | 181 | 44.5% | |
| 20–30 | 57 | 14.0% | |
| More than 30 | 60 | 14.7% | |
| Years of experience | 0–5 | 239 | 58.7% |
| 6–10 | 104 | 25.6% | |
| 10–20 | 46 | 11.3% | |
| >20 | 18 | 4.4% | |
| Age | 22–30 | 262 | 64.4% |
| 30–40 | 105 | 25.8% | |
| 40–50 | 35 | 8.6% | |
| >50 | 5 | 1.2% | |
Table 2.
Knowledge levels of participants regarding probiotics and their various dosage forms.
| Question | Correct Answer | Correct Answer N (%) | Wrong Answer N (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indicate your answer for the following statements. | Probiotics consist of many strains of live microorganisms, each with specific health benefits. | Yes | 388 (95.3%) | 19 (4.7%) |
| Yogurt is a natural source of beneficial bacteria. | Yes | 390 (95.8%) | 17 (4.2%) | |
| Bacteria are commonly used as probiotics. | Yes | 358 (88.0%) | 49 (12.0%) | |
| Lactobacillus acidophilus is used as a probiotic. | Yes | 381 (93.6%) | 26 (6.4%) | |
| Oral probiotics are the most effective dosage form. | Yes | 280 (68.8%) | 127 (31.2%) | |
| Probiotics could be used to | Boost the human immune system. | Yes | 371 (91.2%) | 36 (8.8%) |
| Treat gastrointestinal disorders (GERD, IBS, etc.). | Yes | 303 (74.4%) | 104 (25.6%) | |
| Reduce the risk of traveler’s diarrhea. | Yes | 365 (89.7%) | 42 (10.3%) | |
| Resolve allergy symptoms. | Yes | 280 (68.8%) | 127 (31.2%) | |
| Improve the respiratory tract system immunity. | Yes | 198 (48.6%) | 209 (51.4%) | |
| Reduce the recurrence of urinary tract infections. | Yes | 354 (87.0%) | 53 (13.0%) | |
| The overall health of the cardiovascular system. | Yes | 242 (30.0%) | 165 (70.0%) | |
| Alleviate depression symptoms. | Yes | 122 (59.5%) | 285 (40.5%) | |
| Improve oral health. | Yes | 348 (85.5%) | 59 (14.5%) | |
| Overall vaginal health. | Yes | 360 (88.5%) | 47 (11.5%) | |
| Which type of probiotic may you recommend for patients using antibiotics to prevent antibiotic-associated diarrhea? | Lactobacillus rhamnoses | Lactobacillus rhamnoses | 320 (78.6%) | 87 (21.4%) |
| Available probiotics dosage forms in the pharma market | Capsules | Yes | 376 (92.4%) | 31 (7.6%) |
| Tablets | Yes | 250 (61.4%) | 157 (38.6%) | |
| Syrup/elixir/drops | Yes | 215 (52.8%) | 192 (47.2%) | |
| Oral powder | Yes | 318 (78.1%) | 89 (21.9%) | |
| Topical cream/gel/spray | Yes | 73 (17.9%) | 334 (82.1%) | |
| Chewing gum | Yes | 68 (16.7%) | 339 (83.3%) | |
| Available probiotic delivery systems in the pharma market | Nanoparticles | Yes | 173 (42.5%) | 234 (57.5%) |
| Liposomes | No | 232 (57.0%) | 175 (43.0%) | |
| Microcapsules | Yes | 215 (52.8%) | 192 (47.2%) | |
Table 3.
Participants’ perception of probiotic safety.
| To What Extent Do You Agree with the Following Statement? (Agree, Strongly Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree) | Strongly Disagree/ Disagree N (%) | Neutral N (%) | Strongly Agree/Agree N (%) | Mean ± S.D. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I would benefit from education or workshops related to the use of probiotics. | 0 (0.0%) | 30 (7.4%) | 377 (92.6%) | 2.93 ± 0.262 |
| I think probiotics are safe to be used for pregnant women. | 13 (3.2%) | 77 (18.9%) | 317 (77.9%) | 2.75 ± 0.504 |
| I recommend probiotics without any concerns. | 30 (7.4%) | 78 (19.2%) | 299 (73.5%) | 2.66 ± 0.610 |
| I believe that the public is aware of the benefits and usage of probiotics. | 57 (14.0%) | 85 (20.9%) | 265 (65.1%) | 2.51 ± 0.729 |
| I think probiotics are safe to be used for all ages. | 92 (22.6%) | 53 (13.0%) | 262 (64.4%) | 2.42 ± 0.835 |
| I think probiotics are safe to be prescribed to immunocompromised patients. | 149 (36.6%) | 80 (19.7%) | 178 (43.7%) | 2.07 ± 0.895 |
Table 4.
Participants’ practices regarding dispensing probiotics.
| Questions | N | (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the frequency of selling the probiotics in your pharmacy (during the last year)? | Less than once a week. | 38 | 9.3% |
| Once a week | 64 | 15.7% | |
| 2–3 times a week | 162 | 39.8% | |
| Daily | 143 | 35.1% | |
| How often do you prescribe probiotics to your patients to boost their immune system? | Never | 3 | 0.7% |
| Rarely | 34 | 8.4% | |
| Sometimes | 84 | 20.6% | |
| Often | 179 | 44.0% | |
| Always | 107 | 26.3% | |
| When do you advise your patients to take probiotics concerning meals? | Before meals | 268 | 65.8% |
| After meals | 87 | 21.4% | |
| Irrespective of meals | 52 | 12.8% | |
| What storage condition of the probiotic’s instruction do you emphasize to patients? | Store at room temperature | 271 | 66.6% |
| Store in the fridge | 108 | 26.5% | |
| Others (depending on the type of probiotic) | 21 | 4.3% | |
| Others | 7 | 1.5% | |
| When a patient reaches you asking about probiotics, what is your advice? | Prescribe a proper probiotic for the patient’s condition. | 307 | 75.4% |
| Ask the patient to follow up with the physician. | 67 | 16.5% | |
| I recommend that the patient rely on natural resources for probiotics. | 31 | 7.6% | |
| All | 2 | 0.4% | |
| When discussing probiotics with patients, what common misconceptions have you encountered? | Probiotics are only helpful for digestive issues | 238 | 58.5% |
| All probiotics are the same | 145 | 35.6% | |
| Probiotics can replace a healthy diet | 160 | 39.3% | |
| Probiotics are ineffective | 177 | 43.5% | |
| For which condition do you most frequently prescribe probiotics? | Gastrointestinal diseases | 230 | 56.5% |
| Vaginal infection | 127 | 31.2% | |
| Allergies | 34 | 8.4% | |
| All | 13 | 2.6% | |
| Which probiotic dosage forms are most requested by patients in your pharmacy? | Capsules/Tablets | 249 | 61.2% |
| Suppositories | 9 | 2.2% | |
| Liquid dosage forms | 49 | 12.0% | |
| Powder form | 99 | 24.9% | |
| Semisolid dosage form | 1 | 0.2% | |
| What do you consider when recommending a specific probiotic dosage form to a patient? | The particular health condition the probiotic is intended for | 322 | 79.1% |
| Ease of administration | 170 | 41.8% | |
| Potential for interactions with other medications | 124 | 30.5% | |
| Financial constraints | 129 | 31.7% | |
Table 5.
Participants’ perceived barriers to the optimal use of probiotics.
| What Do You Think of the Following Could Be a Barrier to the Optimum Use of Probiotics in the UAE? | Strongly Disagree/ Disagree N (%) | Neutral N (%) | Strongly Agree/ Agree N (%) | Mean ± S.D. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High cost of probiotics. | 13 (3.2%) | 42 (10.3%) | 352 (86.5%) | 2.83 ± 0.451 |
| Lack of insurance coverage for probiotics. | 18 (4.4%) | 38 (9.3%) | 351 (86.2%) | 2.82 ± 0.488 |
| Lack of recommendations by the physicians. | 9 (2.2%) | 54 (13.3%) | 344 (84.5%) | 2.82 ± 0.436 |
| Poor patient compliance towards specific probiotic dosage forms. | 32 (7.9%) | 77 (18.9%) | 298 (73.2%) | 2.65 ± 0.620 |
| Lack of demand by the public. | 93 (22.9%) | 51 (12.5%) | 263 (64.6%) | 2.42 ± 0.838 |
Table 6.
Association between demographic characteristics and knowledge levels.
| Demographic Characteristics | Knowledge of Probiotics | Chi-Square p-Value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Good Knowledge (%) | Moderate Knowledge (%) | Poor Knowledge (%) | |||
| Gender | Female | 38 (14.7%) | 207 (79.9%) | 14 (5.4%) | 0.044 * |
| Male | 33 (22.3%) | 102 (68.9%) | 13(8.8%) | ||
| Education level | Diploma | 5 (4.3%%) | 102 (88.7%) | 8 (7.0%) | 0.001 * |
| Doctorate or higher | 1 (50.0%) | 1 (50.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | ||
| Master’s degree | 10 (31.3%) | 19 (59.4%) | 3 (9.4%) | ||
| Pharmacy Sciences Bachelors | 36 (18.9%) | 142 (74.7%) | 12 (6.3%) | ||
| PharmD | 19 (27.9%) | 45 (66.2%) | 4 (5.9%) | ||
| Type of pharmacy | Chain Community Pharmacy | 4 (22.6%) | 152 (71.7%) | 12 (5.7) | 0.013 * |
| Individual Community Pharmacy | 14 (17.1%) | 6 (73.2%) | 8 (9.8%) | ||
| Hospital pharmacy | 9 (8.0%) | 97 (85.8%) | 7 (6.2%) | ||
| Location of pharmacy | Abu Dhabi | 2 (15.4%) | 11 (%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0.011 * |
| Ajman | 20 (30.8%) | 36 (%) | 9 (%) | ||
| Dubai | 35 (13.5%) | 210 (%) | 14 (%) | ||
| Fujairah | 1 (50.0%) | 1 (50.0%) | 0 (%) | ||
| Ras Al-Khaimah | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | ||
| Sharjah | 13 (20.0%) | 48 (73.8%) | 4 (6.2%) | ||
| Number of prescriptions per day in pharmacy | 10–19 prescriptions | 29 (16.0%) | 146 (80.7%) | 6 (3.3%) | 0.072 |
| 20–30 prescriptions | 12 (21.2%) | 38 (66.7%) | 7 (12.3%) | ||
| Less than ten prescriptions | 16 (14.7%) | 82 (75.2%) | 11 (10.1%) | ||
| More than 30 prescriptions | 14 (23.3%) | 43 (71.1%) | 3 (5.0%) | ||
| Sources of information | Books and magazines | 43 (31.9%) | 77 (57.0%) | 15 (11.1%) | <0.001 * |
| Media (TV, Radio) | 33 (28.2%) | 74 (63.2%) | 10 (8.5%) | ||
| Social media | 38 (15.5%) | 196 (80.0%) | 11 (4.5%) | ||
| Attending conferences and webinars | 41 (15.8%) | 205 (78.8%) | 14 (5.4%) | ||
| Marketing campaigns of the probiotics manufacturers | 36 (29.3%) | 78 (63.4%) | 9 (7.3%) | ||
| Workplace | 50 (15.6%) | 262 (81.6%) | 9 (2.8%) | ||
| Journal articles | 39 (28.1%) | 88 (63.3%) | 12 (8.6%) | ||
| Information leaflet | 40 (25.0%) | 104 (65.0%) | 16 (10.0%) | ||
| Others | 0 (0.0%) | 7 (100.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | ||
| Years of experience | >20 | 3 (16.7%) | 14 (77.8%) | 1 (5.6%) | 0.474 |
| 0–5 | 34 (14.2%) | 187 (78.2%) | 18 (7.5%) | ||
| 10–20 | 9 (19.6%) | 35 (76.1%) | 2 (4.3%) | ||
| 6–10 | 25 (24.0%) | 73 (70.2%) | 6 (5.8%) | ||
| Age | >50 | 0 (0.0%) | 4 (80.0%) | 1 (20.0%) | 0.107 |
| 20–30 | 36 (13.7%) | 209 (79.8%) | 17 (6.5%) | ||
| 30–40 | 26 (24.8%) | 72 (68.6%) | 7 (5.7%) | ||
| 40–50 | 9 (25.7%) | 24 (68.6%) | 2 (6.6%) | ||
| Practice Section | Knowledge towards probiotics | Chi-square p-value | |||
| Good knowledge (%) | Moderate knowledge (%) | Poor knowledge (%) | |||
| How often do you prescribe probiotics to your patients to boost their immune system? | Always | 36 | 6 | 3 | <0.001 * |
| Never | 1 | 0 | 2 | ||
| Often | 16 | 160 | 3 | ||
| Rarely | 3 | 28 | 3 | ||
| Sometimes | 15 | 53 | 16 | ||
| What is the frequency of selling the probiotics in your pharmacy (during the last year)? | 2–3 times a week | 15 | 134 | 13 | <0.001 * |
| Daily | 46 | 94 | 3 | ||
| Less than once a week. | 4 | 29 | 5 | ||
| Once a week | 6 | 52 | 6 | ||
| When a patient reaches you asking about probiotics, what is your advice? | Ask the patient to follow up with the physician. | 14 | 42 | 12 | <0.001 * |
| Prescribe a proper probiotic for the patient’s condition. | 53 | 244 | 11 | ||
| I recommend that the patient rely on natural probiotic resources. | 4 | 23 | 4 | ||
* Indicates significant results at p level < 0.05.
Table 7.
Multinomial logistic regression analysis of factors associated with moderate and good knowledge levels.
Table 7.
Multinomial logistic regression analysis of factors associated with moderate and good knowledge levels.
| Demographics | Level | Moderate Knowledge | Good Knowledge | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | CI | Sig | OR | CI | Sig | ||
| Gender | Male (ref.) | ||||||
| Female | 1.884 | (0.854–4.157) | 0.117 | 1.069 | (0.440–2.597) | 0.882 | |
| Age category | 40–50 (ref.) | ||||||
| >50 | 0.333 | (0.240–4.595) | 0.412 | 1.962 | (1.500–2.500) | 0.367 | |
| 30–40 | 0.857 | (0.167–4.410) | 0.854 | 0.825 | (0.144–4.725) | 0.829 | |
| 20–30 | 1.025 | (0.223–4.707) | 0.975 | 0.471 | (0.092–2.419) | 0.540 | |
| Highest education | PharmD (ref.) | ||||||
| Diploma | 1.133 | (0.325–3.957) | 0.844 | 0.132 | (0.028–0.622) | 0.010 | |
| Bachelors | 1.052 | (0.323–3.424) | 0.933 | 0.632 | (0.179–2.228) | 0.475 | |
| Master’s | 0.563 | (0.115–2.761) | 0.479 | 0.702 | (0.131–3.771) | 0.680 | |
| Doctorate | 2.980 | (1.500–5.234) | <0.001 | 7.07 | (3.500–12.50) | <0.001 | |
| Experience category | 6–10 (ref.) | ||||||
| 0–5 | 0.854 | (0.326–2.236) | 0.748 | 0.453 | (0.157–1.306) | 0.143 | |
| 10–20 | 1.438 | (0.276–7.491) | 0.666 | 1.080 | (0.184–6.356) | 0.932 | |
| >20 | 1.151 | (0.128–10.3) | 0.900 | 0.720 | (0.063–8.197) | 0.791 | |
| Type of pharmacy | Hospital (ref.) | ||||||
| Community Chain | 0.914 | (0.348–2.402) | 0.855 | 7.411 | (1.871–29.36) | 0.004 | |
| Community Individual | 0.541 | (0.187–1.569) | 0.258 | 3.845 | (0.733–20.15) | 0.111 | |
| Prescriptions per day | >30 (ref.) | ||||||
| 10–20 | 1.698 | (0.407–7.073) | 0.467 | 1.036 | (0.225–4.762) | 0.964 | |
| 20–30 | 0.379 | (0.091–1.569) | 0.181 | 0.367 | (0.077–1.743) | 0.207 | |
| <10 | 0.520 | (0.138–1.964) | 0.335 | 0.312 | (0.072–1.348) | 0.119 | |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Abbas, M.O.; Ahmed, H.; Hamid, E.; Padayachee, D.; Abdulbadia, M.T.; Khalid, S.; Abuelhana, A.; Abdul Rasool, B.K. Pharmacists’ Knowledge, Perception, and Prescribing Practice of Probiotics in the UAE: A Cross-Sectional Study. Antibiotics 2024, 13, 967. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13100967
AMA Style
Abbas MO, Ahmed H, Hamid E, Padayachee D, Abdulbadia MT, Khalid S, Abuelhana A, Abdul Rasool BK. Pharmacists’ Knowledge, Perception, and Prescribing Practice of Probiotics in the UAE: A Cross-Sectional Study. Antibiotics. 2024; 13(10):967. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13100967
Chicago/Turabian StyleAbbas, Maram O., Hanan Ahmed, Eisha Hamid, Dyshania Padayachee, Menah Talla Abdulbadia, Sohila Khalid, Ahmed Abuelhana, and Bazigha K. Abdul Rasool. 2024. "Pharmacists’ Knowledge, Perception, and Prescribing Practice of Probiotics in the UAE: A Cross-Sectional Study" Antibiotics 13, no. 10: 967. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13100967
APA StyleAbbas, M. O., Ahmed, H., Hamid, E., Padayachee, D., Abdulbadia, M. T., Khalid, S., Abuelhana, A., & Abdul Rasool, B. K. (2024). Pharmacists’ Knowledge, Perception, and Prescribing Practice of Probiotics in the UAE: A Cross-Sectional Study. Antibiotics, 13(10), 967. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics13100967
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
