ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2013
Views of the Scottish general public on non-medical prescribing.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Stakeholders' views and experiences of pharmacist prescribing: a systematic review.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Pooled it
- Patient and public perspectives of community pharmacies in the United Kingdom: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018Pooled it
- Clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-medical prescribing: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Facilitators and barriers to non-medical prescribing - A systematic review and thematic synthesis.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Impact of Promotional Videos on Public Perception of Pharmacy Services.Journal of pharmacy practice · 2024Article
- Identifying New Zealand Public Preferences for Pharmacist Prescribers in Primary Care: A Discrete Choice Experiment.The patient · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnder UK legislation, suitably qualified non-medical professionals can practise as prescribers. Few studies have explored the views of the general public towards non-medical prescribing.
objectiveThe aim was to explore the views of the Scottish general public on non-medical prescribing.
settingGeneral community in Scotland.
methodA pre-piloted survey was mailed to a random sample of 5,000 members of the general public in Scotland. In addition to the items on awareness of and attitudes towards non-medical prescribing, respondents were asked to 'give any other comments, issues or concerns you have in relation to health professionals other than doctors prescribing.' Responses were subjected to content analysis.
main outcome measuresKey themes identified from content analysis.
resultsThe overall questionnaire response rate was 37.1 % (n = 1,855) of which 27.2 % (n = 505) provided comments. Most were directly related to pharmacist prescribing (n = 312) while others referred to non-medical prescribers generically (n = 172) or other healthcare professionals (n = 79). Nine themes were identified: perception of knowledge and training; support for a limited range of non-medical prescribing; access to medical records; motivation and convenience; confidence, faith and trust; privacy and confidentiality; risks, controls and continuity of care; supervision and conflict of interest; communication and cooperation.
conclusionsThe findings identify support for non-medical prescribing but indicate the need for non-medical prescribers to engage more with the general public. The comments also provide insight into the challenges for non-medical prescribers, as they strive to fulfil their extended healthcare roles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23690252What 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.