Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24324584›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Use of simulated patients to evaluate combined oral contraceptive dispensing practices of community pharmacists.

Paulo Roque Obreli-Neto, Leonardo Régis Leira Pereira, Camilo Molino Guidoni, André de Oliveira Baldoni, Srecko Marusic, Divaldo Pereira de Lyra-Júnior, Kelsen Luis de Almeida, Ana Claudia Montolezi Pazete, Janaina Dutra do Nascimento, Mitja Kos and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Antimicrobial dispensing process in community pharmacies: a scoping review.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

12 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.

Paulo Roque Obreli-NetoDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, State University of Maringa, Maringa, Brazil.
Leonardo Régis Leira Pereira
Camilo Molino Guidoni
André de Oliveira Baldoni
Srecko Marusic
Divaldo Pereira de Lyra-Júnior
Kelsen Luis de Almeida
Ana Claudia Montolezi Pazete
Janaina Dutra do Nascimento
Mitja Kos
Edmarlon Girotto
Roberto Kenji Nakamura Cuman
Faculdades Integradas de São Paulo · BRUniversidade de Ribeirão Preto · BRUniversidade Estadual de Maringá · BREntomological Society of Brazil · BRUniversidade de São Paulo · BRUniversidade Estadual de Londrina · BRUniversidade Federal de Sergipe · BRUniversity of Ljubljana · SI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCombined oral contraceptive (COC) use is the most commonly used reversible method of birth control. The incorrect use of COCs is frequent and one of the most common causes of unintended pregnancies. Community pharmacists (CPs) are in a strategic position to improve COC use because they are the last health professional to interact with patients before drug use.

objectiveTo evaluate the COC dispensing practices of CPs in a developing country.

methodA cross-sectional study was conducted in community pharmacies of Assis and Ourinhos microregions, Brazil, between June 1, 2012, and October 30, 2012. Four simulated patients (SPs) (with counseled audio recording) visited community pharmacies with a prescription for Ciclo 21(®) (a COC containing ethinyl estradiol 30 mcg + levonorgestrel 15 mcg). The audio recording of every SP visit was listened to independently by 3 researchers to evaluate the COC dispensing practice. The percentage of CPs who performed a screening for safe use of COCs (i.e., taking of patients' medical and family history, and measuring of blood pressure) and provided counseling, as well as the quality of the screening and counseling, were evaluated.

resultsOf the 185 CPs contacted, 41 (22.2%) agreed to participate in the study and finished the study protocol. Only 3 CPs asked the SP a question (1 question asked by each professional), and all of the questions were closed-ended, viz., "do you smoke?" (n = 2) and "what is your age?" (n = 1). None of the CPs measured the patient's blood pressure. Six CPs provided counseling when dispensing COCs (drug dosing, 5 CPs; possible adverse effects, 2 CPs), and one CP provided counseling regarding both aspects.

conclusionThe CPs evaluated did not dispense COC appropriately and could influence in the occurrence of negatives therapeutic outcomes such as adverse effects and treatment failure.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultBrazilClinical CompetenceContraceptionContraceptives, Oral, CombinedCounselingEthinyl EstradiolFemaleHumansLevonorgestrelMalePatient SimulationPharmacistsContraceptives, Oral, CombinedEthinyl EstradiolLevonorgestrel

Identifiers

PMID24324584
PMCPMC3853625
OpenAlexW2092118314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.