Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28690701›Full record

ArticlePharmacy practice

Models and theories of prescribing decisions: A review and suggested a new model.

Mohsen Ali Murshid, Zurina Mohaidin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacy practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Prescribing Mobile Health Applications.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Mohsen Ali MurshidGraduate School of Business, Universiti Sains Malaysia. Penang, (Malaysia). mohsen092@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-1279-8593
Zurina MohaidinPhD. Graduate School of Business, Universiti Sains Malaysia. Penang, (Malaysia). mzurina@usm.my.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To date, research on the prescribing decisions of physician lacks sound theoretical foundations. In fact, drug prescribing by doctors is a complex phenomenon influenced by various factors. Most of the existing studies in the area of drug prescription explain the process of decision-making by physicians via the exploratory approach rather than theoretical. Therefore, this review is an attempt to suggest a value conceptual model that explains the theoretical linkages existing between marketing efforts, patient and pharmacist and physician decision to prescribe the drugs. The paper follows an inclusive review approach and applies the previous theoretical models of prescribing behaviour to identify the relational factors. More specifically, the report identifies and uses several valuable perspectives such as the 'persuasion theory - elaboration likelihood model', the stimuli-response marketing model', the 'agency theory', the theory of planned behaviour,' and 'social power theory,' in developing an innovative conceptual paradigm. Based on the combination of existing methods and previous models, this paper suggests a new conceptual model of the physician decision-making process. This unique model has the potential for use in further research.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAttitudesDecision MakingHealth KnowledgeModelsPhysicians’PracticePractice PatternsTheoretical

Identifiers

PMID28690701
PMCPMC5499356

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.