Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23789877›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2015

Survey of patients' experiences and perceptions of care provided by nurse and pharmacist independent prescribers in primary care.

Michela Tinelli, Alison Blenkinsopp, Sue Latter, Alesha Smith, Stephen R Chapman

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Exploring consumer experiences of pharmacist prescribing - a scoping review.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Nurses' readiness to prescribe under supervision in Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional study.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Patient satisfaction from two studies of collaborative doctor-pharmacist prescribing in Australia.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2016
    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.

Michela TinelliCentre of Academic Primary Care and Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Alison BlenkinsoppDepartment of Medicines Management, Keele School of Pharmacy, University of Keele, Keele, UK.
Sue LatterFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Keele, UK.
Alesha SmithFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Keele, UK.
Stephen R ChapmanKeele's School of Pharmacy, University of Keele, Keele, UK.

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the United Kingdom, nurses and pharmacists who have undertaken additional post-registration training can prescribe medicines for any medical condition within their competence (non-medical prescribers, NMPs), but little is known about patients' experiences and perceptions of this service.

objectiveto obtain feedback from primary care patients on the impact of prescribing by nurse independent prescribers (NIPs) and pharmacist independent prescribers (PIPs) on experiences of the consultation, the patient-professional relationship, access to medicines, quality of care, choice, knowledge, patient-reported adherence and control of their condition.

designTwo cross-sectional postal surveys. SETTING AND

participantsPatients prescribed for by either NIPs or PIPs in six general practices from different regions in England.

results30% of patients responded (294/975; 149/525 NIPs; 145/450 PIPs). Most said they were very satisfied with their last visit (94%; 87%), they were told as much as they wanted to know about their medicines (88%; 80%), and felt the independent prescriber really understood their point of view (87%; 75%). They had a good relationship with (89%; 79%) and confidence in (84%; 77%) their NMP. When comparing NMP and doctor prescribing services, most patients reported no difference in their experience of care provided, including access to it, control of condition, support for adherence, quality and safety of care. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsPatients had positive perceptions and experience from their NMP visit. NMPs were well received, and patients' responses indicated the establishment of rapport. They did not express a strong preference for care provided by either their non-medical or medical prescriber.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetencePatient SatisfactionAgedCross-Sectional StudiesDrug PrescriptionsFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansMaleMiddle AgedNurse CliniciansPharmacistsPharmacologyPrimary Health CareProfessional AutonomySurveys and Questionnairesnon-medical prescribingnurse independent prescriberpatient experiencepharmacist independent prescriber

Identifiers

PMID23789877
PMCPMC5060824

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.