Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

Cancer awareness among community pharmacist: a systematic review

  • 1, 2Email author,
  • 2 and
  • 3
BMC Cancer201818:299

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4195-y

  • Received: 22 August 2017
  • Accepted: 7 March 2018
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

The WHO recognises that community pharmacists are the most accessible healthcare professionals to the general public. Most patients regularly visit community pharmacies for health information and also seek advice from pharmacists with respect to signs and symptoms of cancer. As readily accessible health care professionals, community pharmacists are also in the best position to include cancer-screening initiatives into their practice. Pharmacists are therefore in a good position to raise awareness when they counsel people who buy over-the-counter medication for the control of possible cancer-related symptoms. The aim of this review was to critically appraise evidence gathered from studies that; (1) explore or assess knowledge of community pharmacist on signs and symptoms of cancer, (2) explore or assess knowledge of community pharmacist on cancer screening.

Methods

EMBASE (ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and MEDLINE (EBSCOhost) were systematically searched for studies conducted between 2005 to July 2017. Studies that focused on knowledge of community pharmacist in cancer screening, signs and symptoms were included.

Results

A total of 1538 articles were identified from the search, of which 4 out of the 28 potentially relevant abstracts were included in the review. Findings of the selected studies revealed lack of sufficient knowledge on breast cancer screening, signs and symptoms. Both studies attributed knowledge limitation as the cause of reason for the key findings of their studies.

Conclusion

The selected studies focused largely on breast cancer, which hinder the generalizability and transferability of the findings. Hence there is a need for more studies to be conducted in this area to draw a better conclusion.

Keywords

  • Cancer
  • Awareness
  • Signs and symptoms
  • Screening
  • Community pharmacists

Background

Cancer now causes more deaths than all coronary heart disease or strokes, according to World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates for 2011 [27]. This is likely as a result of late presentation of the disease [16] which have been attributed to a number of factors such as poor awareness of the signs and symptoms of cancer, cancer risk factors, poor availability of tests or screening programs [9, 12, 13].

The continuous global demographic and epidemiological evolution shows an increasing cancer burden over the next decades, especially in low and middle income countries (LMIC), with over 20 million new cancer cases expected annually as early as 2025 [5].

Contemporary pharmacy practice reflects an emerging paradigm from one in which the pharmacist primarily supervises medication distribution and counsels patients, to a more expanded role providing patient-centered medication therapy management, health improvement, health education, health promotion activities and disease prevention services [25]. The role of the pharmacist in cancer care is now growing with community pharmacists advocating, promoting, supporting and providing cancer related health promotion [6].

The WHO recognises that community pharmacists are the most accessible healthcare professionals to the general public [1]. Studies have shown that community pharmacies provide easy and equitable access to healthcare [22]. Most patients regularly visit community pharmacies for health information and also seek advice from pharmacists with respect to signs and symptoms of cancer [15]. Pharmacists are therefore in a good position to raise awareness when they counsel people who buy over-the-counter medication for the control of possible cancer-related symptoms. To be able to achieve this, as healthcare providers in the community, pharmacist must be able to differentiate between conditions that require self-medication and those that need the attention of a physician. They must be able to identify the common signs and symptoms of cancer. As readily accessible health care professionals, community pharmacists are in the best position to include cancer-screening initiatives into their practice. A number of organizations including the US Preventive Services Task Force [24], American Cancer Society [21], and National Comprehensive Cancer Network [17], have developed cancer screening recommendations. Because clinicians may use different guidelines, pharmacists need a working knowledge of basic recommendations [20].

Studies that have assessed knowledge on screening, signs and symptoms of cancer among community pharmacist have been conducted, however, no systematic review have been conducted to pool findings from these studies to inform practice. The aim of this review was to critically appraise evidence gathered from studies that; (1) explore or assess knowledge of community pharmacist on signs and symptoms of cancer, (2) explore or assess knowledge of community pharmacist on cancer screening [23].

Methods

Sources and search strategy

Search of EMBASE (ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and MEDLINE (EBSCOhost) were done to identify evidence. The search period was from 2005 to July, 2017. The MEDLINE search strategy (Appendix 1) used key words such as cancer, community pharmacist, knowledge, awareness, signs and symptoms, screening. This search strategy was adopted for other databases search. Additional search from reference lists of articles selected for full text review yielded no results. The review was designed and carried out following established guidelines on good conduct and reporting of systematic reviews [14]. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO [23], registration number 2017:CRD42017071390.

Eligibility criteria and study selection

Two investigators (KM and FO) independently read the titles and abstracts of all records retrieved and assessed them against the set criteria (Table 1). Data from the included studies were extracted by the primary reviewer (KM) using a standardized research matrix [10], and later checked by another reviewer (AB). Author’s name, year of publication, country and setting, study design, type of cancer, sample size, findings, where the data collected (Appendix 2). The search results were independently reviewed by two authors (KM and FO). The database search identified 1538 records. A total of 349 duplicate records were deleted. One thousand one hundred and eight nine (1189) articles were independently screened on title and abstract by two authors (KM and FO) and irrelevant articles were excluded. The authors evaluated 32 full-text articles for eligibility. After exclusion of 28 articles, 4 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the review. A flow chart summarising the selection procedure is shown in Fig. 1.
Table 1

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria

 ➢ Study population includes community pharmacists.

 ➢ All study types on signs and symptoms of cancer

 ➢ All study types of cancer screening.

 ➢ All study design.

 ➢ Studies published from 2005 to July, 2017

 ➢ Full text available

 ➢ Abstract available

 ➢ Studies published in English language

 ➢ Studies not related to cancer signs and symptoms. (Irrelevant articles)

 ➢ Studies not related to cancer screening. (Irrelevant articles)

 ➢ Studies related to pharmacy staffs, pharmacists, other healthcare personnels other than community pharmacists

 ➢ Abstract

 ➢ Conference abstract

 ➢ Overview/ review

 ➢ Studies with full text not available in English language.

 ➢ Studies published before 2005

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Systematic selection process

Results

The database search found 1538 publications between 2005 and July 2017. A total of 349 duplicate records were removed. A further 1173 records were excluded based on their abstracts and titles. Following the exclusion criteria, another 28 records were also excluded. The remaining 4 articles which met the inclusion criteria were read in full. A flowchart summarising the selection process is shown in Fig. 1.

Study characteristics

The characteristics of the four studies are shown in Table 2. The studies were published from 2010 to 2016. The studies were conducted in Malaysia, Qatar, UAE and Jordan. Community pharmacists were recruited from commercial community pharmacies. The studies included a total of 1678 pharmacists. Breast cancer was the type of cancer discussed in the selected studies. The smallest sample size in the studies was 35 [3] and largest sample size was 1113 [2].
Table 2

Characteristic of studies included in the review

Lead author

Year

Country

Sample description

Type of cancer

Duration of Study

Study design

Sample size

Conclusion

Ibrahim

2013

UAE

Community pharmacies

Breast

24 weeks

Cross sectional survey

335

Community Pharmacists have low level of knowledge in breast cancer. Efforts should be made on providing pharmacists with high quality

Breast cancer continuous education.

Beshir

2012

Malaysia

Independent community pharmacies

Breast

20 weeks

Cross sectional survey

35

Community pharmacists have low breast cancer knowledge which can prevent actualisation of pharmacist role in breast cancer education. Therefore further work should focus on providing pharmacists with high quality breast cancer continuous education.

EL Hajj

2011

Qatar

Community pharmacies

Breast

12 weeks

Descriptive cross sectional survey

195

Low breast cancer knowledge was recorded among community pharmacists. Further work should focus on providing pharmacists with breast cancer continuous education.

Ayoub

2016

Jordan

Commercial community pharmacies

Breast

20 weeks

Descriptive cross sectional survey

1113

There is knowledge gap pertaining to breast cancer and screening guidelines. Pharmacist must improve their knowledge through better undergraduate oncology education and intensive continuous education programmes

Table 3

Quality Assessment of Selected Studies

Study

Quality Assessment items

Relevance to Current Review

Score (%)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

[3]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

100

[8]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

100

[11]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

100

[2]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

100

Total score divided by the total number of items multiplied by 100

0 = No or not reported; 1 = Yes;

A—was sample likely to be representative of the study population?, B—Was a response rate mentioned within the study?, C—Was the instrument used reliable?, D—Was the instrument used valid?; E—Was it a primary data source?; F—Was knowledge on signs and symptoms of cancer assessed?; G—Was knowledge on cancer screening assessed?

Quality assessment score matched with the objectives of the selected studies review: weak: 0–33.9%, moderate: 34%–66.9%, strong: 67%–100%

Quality assessment of selected studies

The quality of the selected studies was assessed using a quality assessment tool [19] Score from 0% - 33.9% is regarded as weak, 34% - 66.9% is regarded as moderate, and 67% - 100% is regarded as strong (n = 4) based on [18] classification of quality level (Table 3).

Discussion

The data from the selected studies were heterogeneous; hence it was not possible to combine it for meta-analysis. Hence the outcomes of the studies were reported as a narrative synthesis.

Findings of the four selected studies revealed lack of sufficient knowledge on breast cancer and screening recommendations. Scores of participants on items about knowledge on cancer signs and symptoms were moderate ([2, 11]. The other two studies [3, 7] had only one item on cancer signs and symptoms which does not give a proper reflection about participants knowledge on signs and symptoms about breast cancer. With aging population in the world, the global burden of cancer is set to increase [4]. One of the approaches adopted by the World Health Organisation (WHO) is to raise awareness through education regarding warning signs of cancer [26]. Therefore much has to be done to improve the knowledge of community pharmacist on these warning signs. Scores were noticed to be low for items about knowledge on cancer screening recommendations for one of the studies [11]. All studies attributed knowledge limitation as the cause of reason for the key findings of their studies. Lack of continuous pharmacy education, non-attendance of continuous pharmacy education and different undergraduate pharmacy curricula contribute to knowledge limitations.

Through this systematic review it can be seen that there has not been many studies done to analyse the knowledge of community pharmacist on screening recommendations, signs and symptoms of cancer for the past 12 years. The selected studies focused on breast cancer only, which hinder the generalizability and transferability of the findings. Hence there is a need for more studies to be conducted in this area to draw a better conclusion which will inform policy.

Conclusion

In conclusion, community Pharmacists possess moderate knowledge on breast cancer signs, symptoms and screening recommendations. However, the findings of this systematic review were highly limited by the fact that only four studies met the review criteria, samples of studies were taken from only one geographic area, Middle East Region and sample size was relatively small. Hence findings may not be applicable to all community pharmacists in general. Further studies should be conducted in other sub regions of the World to generate results for future policy implementation.

Limitations

The search was limited to three databases and did not include data from grey literature. Also the search was restricted to studies conducted from 2005 to July, 2017 and studies published in English. These create opportunity for study selection bias.

Researcher–designed questionnaires were used in the selected studies, which led to heterogeneous results that could not be combined for meta-analysis or meta-synthesis.

The studies were done in only breast cancer hence cannot be generalised for the other cancers. The review was limited to four studies only, and so worldwide survey is required to address certain perception aspects of breast cancer screening, signs and symptoms.

Abbreviations

LMIC: 

Low and middle income countries

WHO: 

World Health Organisation

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge Adwoa Bemah Bonsu, the third reviewer.

Funding

No financial support was sought in the production of this article.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated during the study are available in the figshare repository, https://figshare.com/s/74a819b6b7061e7876c3

Available data was presented in the main manuscript. No supplementary data was generated in this study.

Authors’ contributions

All authors have made substantial contributions to acquisition and analysis of data. KB and FO were involved in the data extraction and drafting the manuscript. AB was involved in reviewing the data and independently running the data extraction process. FO and KB were involved in revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content. Each author has participated sufficiently in the work and takes responsibility for appropriate portions of the content. All authors have read and have given final approval of the version to be published.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
National Center for Radiotherapy & Nuclear Medicine, Directorate of Oncology, Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, Box 1934, Kumasi, Ghana
(2)
University of KwaZulu-Natal, Discipline of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Health Sciences, Westville Campus, University Road, Durban, South Africa
(3)
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology, Department of Nursing, College of Health Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology, Kumasi, Ghana

References

  1. Anderson S. The state of the world’s pharmacy: a portrait of the pharmacy profession. J Interprof Care. 2002;16(4):391–404.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayoub NM, Nuseir KQ, Othman AK, Abu Alkishik S. Knowledge, attitudes and barriers towards breast cancer health education among community pharmacists. J Pharm Health Serv Res. 2016;7(3):189–98.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Beshir SA, Hanipah MA. Knowledge, perception, practice and barriers of breast cancer health promotion activities among community pharmacists in two districts of Selangor state, Malaysia. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13(9):4427–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyle P, Levin B. World cancer report 2008. France: IARC press, International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2008.Google Scholar
  5. Bray F. Transitions in human development and the global cancer burden. World cancer report. 2014:54–68.Google Scholar
  6. Calis, K. A., Hutchison, L. C., Elliott, M. E., Ives, T. J., Zillich, A. J., Poirier, T.,. .. Raebel, M. A. (2004). Healthy people 2010: challenges, opportunities, and a call to action for America’s pharmacists. Pharmacotherapy, 24(9), 1241–1294.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. El Hajj MS, Hamid Y. Breast cancer health promotion in Qatar: a survey of community pharmacists’ interests and needs. Int J Clin Pharm. 2011;33(1):70–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. El Hajj MS, Hamid Y. Breast cancer health promotion in Qatar: a survey of community pharmacists' interests and needs. Int J Clin Pharm. 2013;35(3):376–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-010-9449-y.
  9. Gajda M, Kaminska-Winciorek G. Do not let to be late: overview of reasons for melanoma delayed diagnosis. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(9):3873.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Goossens J, Delbaere I, Van Lancker A, Beeckman D, Verhaeghe S, Van Hecke A. Cancer patients’ and professional caregivers’ needs, preferences and factors associated with receiving and providing fertility-related information: a mixed-methods systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2014;51(2):300–19.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Ibrahim OHM, Ibrahim RM. Community PHARMACISTS’INVOLVEMENT in breast cancer health promotion in UNITED Arab EMIRATES (UAE). Am J Pharmacol Toxicol. 2013;8(4):155.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Jassem J, Ozmen V, Bacanu F, Drobniene M, Eglitis J, Lakshmaiah KC, Semiglazova T. Delays in diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer: a multinational analysis. Eur J Public Health. 2013;24(5):761–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(2):69–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P.,. .. Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med, 6(7), e1000100.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Lum BL, McWaters DS, Mergener MA. Cancer detection and the community pharmacist. Am Pharm. 1989;29(7):54–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Moore MA, Sangrajrang S, Bray F. Asian Cancer registry forum 2014-regional cooperation for cancer registration: priorities and challenges. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(5):1891–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. (2015). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology.Google Scholar
  18. Saab MM, Landers M, Hegarty J. Males’ awareness of benign testicular disorders: an integrative review. Am J Mens Health. 2016a;1557988315626508:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988315626508
  19. Saab, M. M., Landers, M., & Hegarty, J. (2016b). Testicular Cancer awareness and screening practices: a systematic review. Paper presented at the Oncology nursing forum.Google Scholar
  20. Sharabun, M., & Wick, J. Y. (2017). Cancer screening: Let's talk about it.Google Scholar
  21. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Brooks D, Saslow D, Brawley OW. Cancer screening in the United States, 2010: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60(2):99–119.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Todd A, Copeland A, Husband A, Kasim A, Bambra C. Access all areas? An area-level analysis of accessibility to general practice and community pharmacy services in England by urbanity and social deprivation. BMJ Open. 2015;5(5):e007328.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. University of York. (2013). PROSPERO-International prospective register of systematic reviews.Google Scholar
  24. US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services: Report of the US Preventive Services Task Force: DIANE Publishing; 1989.Google Scholar
  25. Webb CE. Prescribing medications: changing the paradigm for a changing health care system. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 1995;52(15):1693–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. World Health Organization. (2007). Cancer control: knowledge into action. WHO guide for effective programmes Early detection Cancer control: knowledge into action WHO guide for effective programmes Early detection. Google Scholar
  27. World Health Organization. (2015). Global health observatory data repository. 2011 Number of deaths (World) by cause: February.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement