ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2018
Doctors and pharmacists provision and opinions of medicines information leaflets in New Zealand.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A scoping review of visual communication of written patient health information preferences including a Māori perspective.Health education research · 2025Review
- Utility of medicines information leaflets in hypertensive care in a setting with low health literacy: A cross-sectional study.Medicine access @ point of careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background Providing verbal medicines information to patients may be insufficient. Providing medicine information leaflets could support verbal information, however New Zealand health professionals' opinions or use of leaflets is unknown. Objective To examine self-reported provision and health professionals' views about medicine information leaflets and to determine their support for tailoring patient leaflets. Setting A cross sectional survey of general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists in New Zealand primary care. Method GPs and pharmacists completed validated questionnaires. Data was collected using SurveyMonkey® and where applicable, Chi squared analysis was carried out. Main outcome measures Frequency of leaflet provision, how leaflets are used in practice and why, likes and dislikes of available leaflets, and opinions on providing tailored information. Results 143 GPs and 126 pharmacists responded. For new medicines, significantly more pharmacists than GPs reported providing leaflets all or most of the time. For repeat medicines, leaflets were more likely to be given only on request. Leaflets were given to ensure patients are well-informed. Most GPs and pharmacists report discussing sections of leaflets with patients. The likes and dislikes of leaflets were mostly about design and content. Both professions support tailoring leaflets to meet individual's requirements. Conclusions Provision of medicines information needs to be re-evaluated. Relying on verbal communication is inadequate and leaflet provision appears to be suboptimal. Making leaflets more patient-centred and accessible could improve health professionals' perceptions and use of them. Automated creation and provision of tailored summary leaflets would be beneficial. Further advantage could be gained by digital patient access.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29675683What 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.