Aim/Objectives: There were two aims; improving type II diabetes glycaemic control; and enhancing the role of community pharmacists by engaging them in type II diabetes medicine management. Methods: This quantitative study collected data from both community pharmacists and patients. In a premises survey, 426 self-administered questionnaires were distributed to community pharmacies. In a knowledge survey, 125 questionnaires were distributed to community pharmacists. In a clinical trial, 40 community pharmacies were randomly assigned to be control (18) and intervention (22) premises. Each pharmacy recruited 4 or 5 patients with type II diabetes. 225 patients were recruited and assigned to receive usual pharmacist care (n=100) or a pre-defined pharmacist intervention (n=125). Results: Community pharmacists had good knowledge of diabetes with average scores 21/29 (±3.18). The differences between control and intervention groups in patients' HbA1c and FPG changes were not significant. In the intervention group patients' diabetes knowledge was significantly improved (p=0.031). In the intervention group HbA1c and FPG improved significantly and in the control group FPG improved significantly and HbA1c did not. Patients' self-reported self-management activities improved significantly around blood glucose measurements (p < 0.001) and physical exercising (p=0.001). Attitudes around the value of tight control of diabetes improved (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The findings suggest that community pharmacists in Libya may have the ability to improve type II diabetes care. The primary outcomes were not improved in intervention versus control. The before/after analysis showed significant improvement in primary outcomes in the intervention group and also in one of the primary outcomes in the control group. Patients' self-reported self-care activities and attitudes improved significantly in the intervention group.

Aim/Objectives: There were two aims; improving type II diabetes glycaemic control; and enhancing the role of community pharmacists by engaging them in type II diabetes medicine management. Methods: This quantitative study collected data from both community pharmacists and patients. In a premises survey, 426 self-administered questionnaires were distributed to community pharmacies. In a knowledge survey, 125 questionnaires were distributed to community pharmacists. In a clinical trial, 40 community pharmacies were randomly assigned to be control (18) and intervention (22) premises. Each pharmacy recruited 4 or 5 patients with type II diabetes. 225 patients were recruited and assigned to receive usual pharmacist care (n=100) or a pre-defined pharmacist intervention (n=125). Results: Community pharmacists had good knowledge of diabetes with average scores 21/29 (±3.18). The differences between control and intervention groups in patients' HbA1c and FPG changes were not significant. In the intervention group patients' diabetes knowledge was significantly improved (p=0.031). In the intervention group HbA1c and FPG improved significantly and in the control group FPG improved significantly and HbA1c did not. Patients' self-reported self-management activities improved significantly around blood glucose measurements (p<0.001) and physical exercising (p=0.001). Attitudes around the value of tight control of diabetes improved (p<0.001). Conclusion: The findings suggest that community pharmacists in Libya may have the ability to improve type II diabetes care. The primary outcomes were not improved in intervention versus control. The before/after analysis showed significant improvement in primary outcomes in the intervention group and also in one of the primary outcomes in the control group. Patients' self-reported self-care activities and attitudes improved significantly in the intervention group.