ArticleBMC family practice2018
Identifying enablers and barriers to individually tailored prescribing: a survey of healthcare professionals in the UK.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Application of normalisation process theory in understanding implementation processes in primary care settings in the UK: a systematic review.BMC family practice · 2020Pooled it
- Using Normalisation Process Theory to Develop a Complex Intervention: A Qualitative Case Study of Screening for Homelessness in Healthcare Settings.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Person-Centered Multimorbidity Care in UK Primary Care: Identifying Changes to Practice.Annals of family medicine · 2026Article
- Designing and validating a clinical decision support algorithm for diabetic nephroprotection in older patients.BMJ health & care informatics · 2024Article
- Applying Structural Equation Modelling to Understand the Implementation of Social Distancing in the Professional Lives of Healthcare Workers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Which factors promote and prohibit successful implementation and normalization of a healthy school lunch program at primary schools in the Netherlands?Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2022Article
- Optimising a person-centred approach to stopping medicines in older people with multimorbidity and polypharmacy using the DExTruS framework: a realist review.BMC medicine · 2022Review
- Deprescribing medicines in older people living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: the TAILOR evidence synthesis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2022Review
- Understanding the impact of professional motivation on the workforce crisis in medicine: a rapid review.BJGP open · 2021Article
- Article
- Barriers and enablers for deprescribing among older, multimorbid patients with polypharmacy: an explorative study from Switzerland.BMC family practice · 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.
Funding
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
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.