Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29675683›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2018

Doctors and pharmacists provision and opinions of medicines information leaflets in New Zealand.

Amber Young, June Tordoff, Sharon Leitch, Alesha Smith

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

4 authors.

Amber YoungUniversity of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. amber.young@postgrad.otago.ac.nz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6800-1454
June TordoffUniversity of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Sharon LeitchUniversity of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Alesha SmithUniversity of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Funding

University of Otago PhD Scholarship
6 · The paper itself

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

Attitude of Health PersonnelPamphletsAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansMaleMiddle AgedNew ZealandPharmacistsYoung AdultCounsellingMedicine informationNew ZealandPatient educationPatient information leafletTailored information

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.