ArticlePeerJ2018
A survey of the views and capabilities of community pharmacists in Western Australia regarding the rescheduling of selected oral antibiotics in a framework of pharmacist prescribing.
Article in PeerJ, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Stakeholders' views of the implementation of pharmacist prescribing in the community pharmacy setting: a mixed-methods systematic review.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Review
- Pharmacist-Led Prescribing in Austria: A Mixed-Methods Study on Clinical Readiness and Legal Frameworks.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Characteristics of the sore throat test and treat service in community pharmacies (STREP) in Wales: cross-sectional analysis of 11 304 consultations using anonymized electronic pharmacy records.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAntibiotic misuse in the community contributes to antimicrobial resistance. One way to address this may be by better utilizing community pharmacists' skills in antibiotic prescribing. The aims of this study were to examine the level of support for "down-scheduling" selected antibiotics and to evaluate factors determining the appropriateness of community pharmacist prescribing for a limited range of infections, including their decision to refer to a doctor.
methodsSelf-administered questionnaires, including graded case vignette scenarios simulating real practice, were sent to Western Australian community pharmacists. In addition to descriptive statistics and chi-square testing, a General Estimating Equation (GEE) was used to identify factors associated with appropriateness of therapy and the decision to refer, for each of the seven vignettes.
resultsOf the 240 pharmacists surveyed, 90 (37.5%) responded, yielding 630 responses to seven different case vignettes. There was more than 60% respondent support for expanded prescribing (rescheduling) of commonly prescribed antibiotics. Overall 426/630 (67.6%) chose to treat the patient while the remaining 204/630 (32.4%) referred the patient to a doctor. Of those electing to treat, 380/426 (89.2%) opted to use oral antibiotics, with 293/380 (77.2%) treating with an appropriate selection and regimen. The GEE model indicated that pharmacists were more likely to prescribe inappropriately for conditions such as otitis media ( DISCUSSION: This study adds further insight into community pharmacy/pharmacist characteristics associated with appropriateness of oral antibiotic selection and the decision to refer to doctors. These findings require consideration in designing pharmacist over-the-counter prescribing models for oral antibiotics.
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.