Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19175439›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Geriatrics Society2009

Which providers should communicate which critical information about a new medication? Patient, pharmacist, and physician perspectives.

Derjung M Tarn, Debora A Paterniti, Bradley R Williams, Camille S Cipri, Neil S Wenger

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Derjung M TarnDepartment of Family Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90024, USA. dtarn@mednet.ucla.edu
Debora A Paterniti
Bradley R Williams
Camille S Cipri
Neil S Wenger
University of Southern California · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

UCLA OLDER AMERICANS INDEPENDENCE CENTERP30AG028748 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI KARLAMANGLA, ARUN S · 2006 to 2017
$9.8M
MENTORED CLINICAL SCIENTIST DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMK12AG001004 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI REUBEN, DAVID B. · 2000 to 2009
$4.3M
NIA NIH HHS 5K12AG001004NIA NIH HHS 5P30 AG028748NIA NIH HHS K12 AG001004NIA NIH HHS P30 AG028748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate older patient, pharmacist, and physician perspectives about what information is essential to impart to patients receiving new medication prescriptions and who should provide the information.

designQualitative focus group discussions. SETTINGS: Senior centers, retail pharmacies, and primary care physician offices.

participantsForty-two patients aged 65 and older, 13 pharmacists, and 17 physicians participated in eight focus groups. MEASUREMENT: Qualitative analysis of transcribed focus group interviews and consensus through iterative review by multidisciplinary auditors.

resultsPatient, pharmacist, and physician groups all affirmed the importance of discussing medication directions and side effects and said that physicians should educate about side effects and that pharmacists could adequately counsel about certain important issues. However, there was substantial disagreement between groups about which provider could communicate which critical elements of medication-related information. Some pharmacists felt that they were best equipped to discuss medication-related issues but acknowledged that many patients want physicians to do this. Physicians tended to believe that they should provide most new-medication education for patients. Patients had mixed preferences. Patients aged 80 and older listed fewer critical topics of discussion than younger patients.

conclusionPatients, pharmacists, and physicians have incongruent beliefs about who should provide essential medication-related information. Differing expectations could lead to overlapping, inefficient efforts that result in communication deficiencies when patients receive a new medication. Collaborative efforts to ensure that patients receive complete information about new medications could be explored.

Indexed as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsAttitude of Health PersonnelCommunicationDrug Information ServicesPharmacistsPhysiciansAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsChoice BehaviorCultureFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMalePatient Education as Topic

Identifiers

PMID19175439
PMCPMC2731774
OpenAlexW1681172738

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.