Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26173937›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2015

Problems with oral formulations prescribed to children: a focus group study of healthcare professionals.

Rebecca Venables, Heather Stirling, Hannah Batchelor, John Marriott

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Observational
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

4 authors.

Rebecca VenablesSchool of Pharmacy, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK. r.h.venables@keele.ac.uk.
Heather StirlingPaediatric Department, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Clifford Bridge Road, Walsgrave, Coventry, CV2 2DX, UK. heather.stirling@uhcw.nhs.uk.
Hannah BatchelorPharmacy and Therapeutics Section, School of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, College of Medical and Dental Sciences (CMDS), Medical School Building, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, B15 2TT, UK. h.k.batchelor@bham.ac.uk.
John MarriottPharmacy and Therapeutics Section, School of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, College of Medical and Dental Sciences (CMDS), Medical School Building, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, B15 2TT, UK. j.f.marriott@bham.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is evidence to suggest that adherence with prescribed medication is lower amongst adolescents and children than in adults. Medication adherence rates between 11 and 93 % in paediatric patients have been reported. More research needs to be carried out in order to understand why medicines adherence is low and how adherence can be improved in children with long-term conditions. Personal communication with paediatricians in secondary care has highlighted that problems are most likely to be encountered by parents, carers, nurses and children themselves when administering medicines for prevalent long-term childhood conditions.

objectiveTo explore problems with oral medicines prescribed to paediatric patients from the perspectives of medical practitioners, pharmacists and nurses. Setting Two NHS trusts in the West Midlands, UK.

methodsFour focus groups (FG) were conducted. Five nurses, eight medical practitioners and six pharmacists participated in focus groups. The themes explored were problems experienced when prescribing, dispensing and administering oral medicines for children. Main outcome measure Themes evolving from Healthcare professionals reports on problems with administering medicines to paediatric patients.

resultsTwo main themes: sensory and non-sensory emerged from the data. Included within these were taste, texture, colour, smell, size, swallowing, quantity, volume and manipulation with food. Taste was the most commonly reported barrier to medicines administration. Texture was reported to be a significant problem for the learning disability population. Medicines manipulation techniques were revealed across the groups, yet there was limited knowledge regarding the evidence base for such activity. Problems surrounding the supply of Specials medicines were discussed in-depth by the pharmacists.

conclusionOrganoleptic and physical properties of medicines are key barriers to medicines administration. A robust scientific evidence-based approach is warranted to inform standardised protocols guiding healthcare professionals to support safe and effective medicines manipulation across all settings. Pharmacists' knowledge of Specials medicines needs to be recognised as a valuable resource for doctors. Findings of this study should help to optimise paediatric prescribing and direct future formulation work.

Indexed as

Administration, OralChemistry, PharmaceuticalChildDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFocus GroupsHumansMedication AdherenceNursesParentsPediatricsPharmacistsSchoolsSecondary Health CareSensationTasteUnited KingdomAdherenceHealthcare professionalsMedicines administrationPediatricsPrescribing

Identifiers

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.