Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28070689›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2017

Redispensing of medicines unused by patients: a qualitative study among stakeholders.

Charlotte L Bekker, Helga Gardarsdottir, Toine C G Egberts, Marcel L Bouvy, Bart J F van den Bemt

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Reuse of unused medications: a cross-sectional study on public willingness and influencing factors.Journal of pharmacy & pharmaceutical sciences : a publication of the Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Societe canadienne des sciences pharmaceutiques · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Actual versus recommended storage temperatures of oral anticancer medicines at patients' homes.Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners · 2019
    Article
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

5 authors.

Charlotte L BekkerDepartment of Pharmacy, Sint Maartenskliniek, PO box 9011, 6500 GM, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. c.bekker@maartenskliniek.nl.
Helga GardarsdottirDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Division of Laboratory and Pharmacy, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Toine C G EgbertsDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Division of Laboratory and Pharmacy, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marcel L BouvyDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Bart J F van den BemtDepartment of Pharmacy, Sint Maartenskliniek, PO box 9011, 6500 GM, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Medication waste has undesirable economic and environmental consequences. This waste is partly unavoidable, but might be reduced by redispensing medicines unused by patients. However, there is little knowledge of stakeholders' views on the redispensing. Objective To identify the stakeholders' views on the redispensing of medicines unused by patients. Setting Dutch healthcare system. Method Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 Dutch stakeholders from September 2014 until April 2015. The interview guide included two themes: medication waste and redispensing of unused medicines. The latter included qualitative-, legal- and financial aspects and stakeholder involvement, with specific attention to the patient. Interview transcripts were subjected to thematic content analysis. Main outcome measure Requirements related to the redispensing of unused medicines. Results All stakeholders considered the redispensing of medicines desirable if the implementation is feasible and the requirements for the safe redispensing are met. All of them pointed out that the product quality of redispensed medicines should be guaranteed and that it should be clear who is responsible for the quality of redispensed medicines. The stakeholders stated that transparent communication to patients is essential to guarantee trust in the redispensing system and that patients should be willing to use redispensed medicines. Moreover, the redispensing system's benefits should outweigh the costs and a minimal economic value of medicines suitable for redispensing should be determined. Conclusion Redispensing unused medicines could decrease medication waste if several requirements are met. For successful implementation of a redispensing system, all relevant stakeholders should be involved and cooperate as a joint-force.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationQualitative ResearchFemaleHumansMaleNetherlandsPharmaceutical ServicesPrescription DrugsPrescription DrugsMedication wasteQualitative researchRedispensingStakeholdersThe NetherlandsUnused medicines

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.