ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2011
Exploring communications around medication review in community pharmacy.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Polypharmacy in older patients: identifying the need for support by a community pharmacist.BMC geriatrics · 2019Article
- Evaluation of a Danish pharmacist student-physician medication review collaboration model.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2014Article
- Implementation of pharmacist-led medication reviews in general practice.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesInvestigation into aspects that influence outcomes of medication reviews have been called for. The aim of this study was to assess how pharmacy internship students in a Danish medication review and reconciliation model communicated with both diabetes patients and the patients' General Practitioners (GPs) when conveying the results of the review by writing letters to the different parties. Special attention was drawn to how differences in health care provider and patient perspectives of the disease as well as inclusion of the patient in the decision making process is influenced by the identified practices of communication.
setting18 Danish community pharmacies with The Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy at the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Copenhagen.
methodNumber of identified drug related problems, life-world problems and solutions to these described in the letters sent to patients and their GPs were registered. Further a qualitative documentary analysis was conducted by analyzing the letters using the theory of transactional analysis, developed by Berne.
main outcome measuresIdentified and conveyed drug related and life-world related problems when comparing patients' letters with GPs' letters. Whether students assumed a superior, inferior or equal role in relation to the recipient of the letter and compared whether students assumed the same role in relation to patients and GPs.
results18 pairs of patient and GP letters were analyzed. The analysis showed that students conveyed more drug-related problems to GPs than to patients. Furthermore, students assumed an equal relationship to GPs, whereas they frequently took superior positions when writing to patients. Students reported lifestyle problems both to GPs and to patients.
conclusionPharmacy students in a Danish medication review and reconciliation model managed to detect and address lifestyle problems of patients to their GPs, thereby facilitating the merger of their professional-technical perspective with the life-world perspective of patients. However, patients were not encouraged to become more involved in the disease management process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21442285What 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.