Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29334913›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2018

Identifying enablers and barriers to individually tailored prescribing: a survey of healthcare professionals in the UK.

Joanne Reeve, Nicky Britten, Richard Byng, Jo Fleming, Janet Heaton, Janet Krska

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

6 authors.

Joanne ReeveHull York Medical School, Hull University, Cottingham Road, HU67RX, Hull, England. Joanne.reeve@hyms.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-3184-7955
Nicky BrittenUniversity of Exeter Medical School, St Luke's Campus, Heavitree Road, EX1 2LU, Exeter, England.
Richard ByngClinical Trials and Health Research, Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, ITTC, Drake Circus, PL4 8AA, Plymouth, England.
Jo FlemingWarwick Primary Care, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, CV4 7AL, Coventry, England.
Janet HeatonDivision of Health Research, University of the Highlands and Islands, 10 Inverness Campus, IV2 5NA, Inverness, Scotland.
Janet KrskaMedway School of Pharmacy, The Universities of Greenwich and Kent at Medway, Anson Building, Central Avenue, Chatham Maritime, Chatham Kent, ME4 4TB, Canada.

Funding

Department of Health NIHR/CS/009/013
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany people now take multiple medications on a long-term basis to manage health conditions. Optimising the benefit of such polypharmacy requires tailoring of medicines use to the needs and circumstances of individuals. However, professionals report barriers to achieving this in practice. In this study, we examined health professionals' perceptions of enablers and barriers to delivering individually tailored prescribing.

methodsNormalisation Process Theory (NPT) informed an on-line survey of health professionals' views of enablers and barriers to implementation of Individually Tailored Prescribing (ITP) of medicines. Links to the survey were sent out through known professional networks using a convenience/snowball sampling approach. Survey questions sought to identify perceptions of supports/barriers for ITP within the four domains of work described by NPT: sense making, engagement, action and monitoring. Analysis followed the framework approach developed in our previous work.

resultsFour hundred and nineteen responses were included in the final analysis (67.3% female, 32.7% male; 52.7% nurse prescribers, 19.8% pharmacists and 21.8% GPs). Almost half (44.9%) were experienced practitioners (16+ years in practice); around one third reported already routinely offering ITP to their patients. GPs were the group least likely to recognise this as consistent usual practice. Findings revealed general support for the principles of ITP but significant variation and inconsistency in understanding and implementation in practice. Our findings reveal four key implications for practice: the need to raise understanding of ITP as a legitimate part of professional practice; to prioritise the work of ITP within the range of individual professional activity; to improve the consistency of training and support for interpretive practice; and to review the impact of formal and informal monitoring processes on practice.

conclusionThe findings will inform the ongoing development of our new complex intervention (PRIME Prescribing) to support the individual tailoring of medicines needed to address problematic polypharmacy.

Indexed as

Drug PrescriptionsHealth PersonnelPolypharmacyPrecision MedicineAttitude of Health PersonnelCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansMaleNursesPharmacistsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomIndividually tailored careMedicines optimisationPolypharmacy

Identifiers

PMID29334913
PMCPMC5769369

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.