Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27940633›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Supporting underserved patients with their medicines: a study protocol for a patient/professional coproduced education intervention for community pharmacy staff to improve the provision and delivery of Medicine Use Reviews (MURs).

Asam Latif, Kristian Pollock, Claire Anderson, Justin Waring, Josie Solomon, Li-Chia Chen, Emma Anderson, Sulma Gulzar, Nasa Abbasi, Heather Wharrad

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Community pharmacy Medicines Use Review: current challenges.Integrated pharmacy research & practice · 2017
    Review
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

10 authors.

Asam LatifFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Kristian PollockFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Claire AndersonDivision of Social Research in Medicines and Health, School of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Justin WaringCentre for Health Innovation, Leadership and Learning, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Josie SolomonSchool of Health and Life Sciences, Leicester School of Pharmacy, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK.
Li-Chia ChenDivision of Social Research in Medicines and Health, School of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Emma AndersonCentre for Pharmacy Postgraduate Education (CPPE), University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Sulma GulzarNHS South East Staffordshire and Seisdon Peninsular CCG, Burton on Trent, Staffordshire Nottingham, Staffordshire, UK.
Nasa AbbasiThe Queen's Pharmacy Centre, Nottingham, UK.
Heather WharradFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Funding

Department of Health ICA-CL-2015-01-008Department of Health [UK]
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCommunity pharmacy increasingly features in global strategies to modernise the delivery of primary healthcare. Medicine Use Reviews (MURs) form part of the English Government's medicines management strategy to improve adherence and reduce medicine waste. MURs provide space for patient-pharmacist dialogue to discuss the well-known problems patients experience with medicine taking. However, 'underserved' communities (eg, black and minority ethnic communities, people with mental illness), who may benefit the most, may not receive this support. This study aims to develop, implement and evaluate an e-learning education intervention which is coproduced between patients from underserved communities and pharmacy teams to improve MUR provision. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This mixed-methods evaluative study will involve a 2-stage design. Stage 1 involves coproduction of an e-learning resource through mixed patient-professional development (n=2) and review (n=2) workshops, alongside informative semistructured interviews with patients (n=10) and pharmacy staff (n=10). Stage 2 involves the implementation and evaluation of the intervention with community pharmacy staff within all community pharmacies within the Nottinghamshire geographical area (n=237). Online questionnaires will be completed at baseline and postintervention (3 months) to assess changes in engagement with underserved communities and changes in self-reported attitudes and behaviour. To triangulate findings, 10 pharmacies will record at baseline and postintervention, details of actual numbers of MURs performed and the proportion that are from underserved communities. Descriptive and inferential statistics will be used to analyse the data. The evaluation will also include a thematic analysis of one-to-one interviews with pharmacy teams to explore the impact on clinical practice (n=20). Interviews with patients belonging to underserved communities, and who received an MUR, will also be conducted (n=20). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval from the NHS Research Ethics Committee (East Midlands-Derby) and governance clearance through the NHS Health Research Authority. Following the evaluation, the educational intervention will be freely accessible online.

Indexed as

Drug Utilization ReviewAdultCommunity Pharmacy ServicesEducation, ProfessionalFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInternetMaleMedically Underserved AreaMedication AdherenceMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicProfessional RoleEDUCATION & TRAINING (see Medical Education & Training)PRIMARY CARE

Identifiers

PMID27940633
PMCPMC5168598

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.