ArticlePharmacy world & science : PWS2007
Frequency, nature and determinants of pharmaceutical consultations provided in private by Dutch community pharmacists.
Article in Pharmacy world & science : PWS, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacists' preferences for the provision of services to improve medication adherence among patients with diabetes in Indonesia: Results of a discrete choice experiment.Health & social care in the community · 2022Article
- Medication safety in patients with hepatic impairment: A survey of community pharmacists' knowledge level and their practice in caring for these patients.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Article
- Exploring pharmacist-customer communication: the established blood pressure measurement episode.Pharmacy world & science : PWS · 2010Article
- The counter and consultation room work explored in the Netherlands.Pharmacy world & science : PWS · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAccording to a report published by the federation of Dutch patients' associations, patients would like to see a pharmacist, who acts more as a personal adviser. This raised the question, how often Dutch community pharmacists have personal consultations with their patients in daily practice, on which factors this depends, and what kind of topics are discussed during these meetings.
settingCommunity pharmacies in the Netherlands.
methodA questionnaire was distributed among 800 randomly selected pharmacies. Questions were restricted to consultations characterized by one-to-one contact, drug therapy related content, and adequate privacy. These consultations were labelled as pharmaceutical consultations in private to distinguish them from other contacts between pharmacists and patients.
main outcome measureNumber, content, and character of consultations.
results198 (24.8%) community pharmacies responded. The pharmacists provide an average of roughly 1.2 consultations in private per working day. The vast majority of respondents provided face-to-face and telephone consultations (94.4 and 91.9%, respectively), only a minority gave consultations by e-mail (30.8%). These consultations primarily dealt with topics related to medication safety. The mean overall time spent was 290 min per month. A relatively high frequency of personal consultations was significantly associated with the absolute number of full-time equivalent pharmacists in the pharmacy.
conclusionThe frequency of pharmaceutical consultations in private is low, but may be improved by reorganisation of the pharmacist's activities. The possibility of personal consultations by e-mail is not yet well-developed. Further research is needed to assess the patient's view of pharmaceutical consultations in private.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.