ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2016
Development of a decision support system for the practice of responsible self-medication.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Definition of self-medication: a scoping review.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2022Article
- Self-medication for oral health problems among adults attending the University Dental Hospital, Sharjah.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResponsible self-medication is an integral part of the health system that consists of community pharmacists counseling patients on treating minor illness using non-prescription medications. Systems for properly managing information can assist disease identification and clinical decision-making.
objectiveTo develop a software program to assist community pharmacists in clinical decision-making regarding selfmedication.
settingThe study was conducted in northeastern Brazil.
methodsThe study was conducted from February 2012 to January 2014. System development included identifying minor illnesses commonly treated by community pharmacists and creating simulations of community pharmacies using a simulated patient methodology. Clinical pharmacists, production engineering students, professors, and a pharmacist researcher comprised the development group. Five meetings were held to develop the software, and the system was completed in December 2013.
main outcome measureMinor illnesses commonly treated by community pharmacists, and simulated patient methodology.
resultsIn the first meeting the final list of topics for inclusion in the algorithm indicated the exact questions to be addressed by the community pharmacist to properly manage the complaint. In the second meeting, the discussions in the focus group indicated consensus among pharmacists as to the medications on the list of Groups and Specified Therapeutic Indications of Brazilian Legislation. In the third meeting were defined the parameters to refer patients to the doctor. In the fourth meeting the algorithm was tested using a simulated patient, to observe whether the question order ensures an effective, efficient, and safe decision process for the patient. In the fifth meeting, the algorithm was tested again using a simulated patient with the flu, and all group members agreed upon its final incarnation after refinements to the situations that determined referral to the doctor.
conclusionThe software may contribute to identifying health risk situations (potentially unsafe medications based on clinical history, clinical hazards, and past adverse events) requiring medical treatment.
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.