Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29721736›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2018

Patient and medication factors associated with preventable medication waste and possibilities for redispensing.

C L Bekker, B J F van den Bemt, A C G Egberts, M L Bouvy, H Gardarsdottir

Abstract read
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 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Reuse of unused medications: a cross-sectional study on public willingness and influencing factors.Journal of pharmacy & pharmaceutical sciences : a publication of the Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Societe canadienne des sciences pharmaceutiques · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Unused medicine take-back programmes: a systematic review.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2024
    Review
  15. Emicizumab prophylaxis for people with hemophilia A: Waste estimation and the Brazilian perspective.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

5 authors.

C L BekkerDepartment of Pharmacy, Sint Maartenskliniek, Hengstdal 3, 6574 NA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
B J F van den BemtDepartment of Pharmacy, Sint Maartenskliniek, Hengstdal 3, 6574 NA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
A C G EgbertsDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Division Laboratories and Pharmacy, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
M L BouvyDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, 99, 3584 CG, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
H GardarsdottirDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Division Laboratories and Pharmacy, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands. h.gardarsdottir@uu.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5623-9684

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Knowledge on factors related to preventable medication waste and waste-reducing interventions, including redispensing unused medications, is needed to maximise effectiveness. Objective To assess patient and medication factors associated with preventable medication waste and possibilities for redispensing unused medications. Setting Dutch community pharmacies. Methods In this cross-sectional study, pharmacy-staff registered patient and medication characteristics of prescription medications returned to 41 Dutch community pharmacies during 1 week in 2014. Medications were classified as preventable waste if the remaining amount could have been prevented and as theoretically eligible for redispensing if the package was unopened, undamaged and ≥ 6 months until the expiry date. Associations were analysed using multivariate logistic regression. Main outcome measures Proportion of medications classified as preventable waste and as eligible for redispensing, including factors associated with these medications. Results Overall, 279 persons returned 759 (low-cost) medications, and 39.3% was classified as preventable waste. These medications were more frequently used by men than women (OR; 1.7[1.2-2.3]) and by older (> 65 years) than younger patients (OR; 1.4[1.0-2.0]). Medications dispensed for longer periods were more often unnecessary wasted (1-3 months OR; 1.8[1.1-3.0], > 3 months 3.2[1.5-6.9]). Of all returned medications, 19.1% was eligible for redispensing. These medications were more frequently used by men than women (OR; 1.9[1.3-2.9]). Medications chronically used were more frequently eligible for redispensing than acute use (OR; 2.1[1.0-4.3]), and used for longer periods (1-3 months OR; 4.6[2.3-8.9], > 3 months 7.8[3.3-18.5]). Conclusions Over one-third of waste due to medications returned to community pharmacies can be prevented. One-fifth of returned medications can be redispensed, but this seems less interesting from an economic viewpoint.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAge FactorsChildChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleMiddle AgedPrescription DrugsRecyclingSex FactorsPrescription DrugsCommunity pharmacyMedication wastePharmacy servicesRedispensingThe NetherlandsUnused medications

Identifiers

PMID29721736
PMCPMC5984955

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.