ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2014
Prescribing with indication: uptake of regulations in current practice and patients opinions in the Netherlands.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient counselling on opioids by pharmacy technicians: A mixed-method study to explore facilitators and barriers.PEC innovation · 2025Article
- Incorporating 'reason for use' into the prescribing process of medication: a survey on the opinion of patients in Flanders, Belgium.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Including the Reason for Use on Prescriptions Sent to Pharmacists: Scoping Review.JMIR human factors · 2021Article
- Workflow-based data solutions are required to support antimicrobial stewardship in general practice.BMJ open quality · 2019Article
- What do Australian consumers, pharmacists and prescribers think about documenting indications on prescriptions and dispensed medicines labels?: A qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- The Utrecht Pharmacy Practice network for Education and Research: a network of community and hospital pharmacies in the Netherlands.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince January 2012 the Dutch Medicines Act has been changed to enable medication monitoring and counselling for individual patients. Prescribers of medicines are now obliged to record the indication on the prescription of medicines mentioned in this law.
objectiveTo assess patients' opinion about recording of the indication on prescription and to explore the uptake of alterations in the medicines act in clinical practice.
methodsThe study was conducted in a sample of 57 community pharmacies belonging to the Utrecht Pharmacy Practice Network for Education and Research. In total, 528 patients were interviewed in these pharmacies and automated dispensing records were obtained from 22 community pharmacies to check prescriptions for linking of diagnosis codes (indications).
resultsFor 12.5 % of the prescriptions that required notification of the indication, a diagnosis code was mentioned. For all other medicines, 15.1 % of the prescriptions were provided with diagnosis codes. There was large variation between different drugs. Only 11.7 % of the interviewed patients were familiar with the law. The majority of patients (91.1 %) had no objections with mentioning the indication for use on the prescription.
conclusionIndications are insufficiently mentioned on prescriptions while the majority of patients are generally positive about the law.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24337662What 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.