ArticlePloS one2015
Widening consumer access to medicines: a comparison of prescription to non-prescription medicine switch in Australia and New Zealand.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- From informal practice to structured care: pharmaceutical indication and minor ailment management in Latin American community pharmacy.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Survey of community pharmacists' opinions on drug scheduling in Ontario and Québec.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2024Article
- Māori, pharmacists, and medicines adherence - A mixed methods study exploring indigenous experiences of taking medicines 'as prescribed' and mechanisms of support.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2022Article
- Why are self-medication opportunities limited in Austria? An interview study and comparison with other countries.PloS one · 2021Article
- Prescription and Non-Prescription Drug Classification Systems Across Countries: Lessons Learned for Thailand.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2020Article
- Is Reclassification of the Oral Contraceptive Pill from Prescription to Pharmacist-Only Cost Effective? Application of an Economic Evaluation Approach to Regulatory Decisions.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Article
- Analysing the landscape for prescription to non-prescription reclassification (switch) in Germany: an interview study of committee members and stakeholders.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Double-Dosing and Other Dangers with Non-Prescription Medicines: Pharmacists' Views and Experiences.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
- Using machine learning to investigate self-medication purchasing in England via high street retailer loyalty card data.PloS one · 2018Article
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
backgroundDespite similarities in health systems and Trans-Tasman Harmonization of medicines scheduling, New Zealand is more active than Australia in 'switching' (reclassifying) medicines from prescription to non-prescription.
objectivesTo identify and compare enablers and barriers to switch in New Zealand and Australia.
methodsWe conducted and analyzed 27 in-depth personal interviews with key participants in NZ and Australia and international participants previously located in Australia, and analyzed records of meetings considering switches (2000-2013). Analysis of both sets of data entailed a heuristic qualitative approach that embraced the lead researcher's knowledge and experience.
resultsThe key themes identified were conservatism and political influences in Australia, and an open attitude, proactivity and flexibility in NZ. Pharmacist-only medicine schedules and individuals holding a progressive attitude were proposed to facilitate switch in both countries. A pharmacy retail group drove many switches in NZ ('third-party switch'), unlike Australia. Barriers to switch in both countries included small market sizes, funding of prescription medicines and cost of doctor visits, and lack of market exclusivity. In Australia, advertising limitations for pharmacist-only medicines reportedly discouraged industry from submitting switch applications. Perceptions of pharmacy performance could help or hinder switches.
conclusionCommittee and regulator openness to switch, and confidence in pharmacy appear to influence consumer access to medicines. The pharmacist-only medicine schedule in Australasia and the rise of third-party switch and flexibility in switch in NZ could be considered elsewhere to enable switch.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.