ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2018
Community pharmacists' views of using a screening tool to structure medicines use reviews for older people: findings from qualitative interviews.
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 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Collaborative and integrated working between general practice and community pharmacies: A realist review of what works, for whom, and in which contexts.Journal of health services research & policy · 2025Review
- Community pharmacists' views towards implementing a patient self-administered screening tool designed to identify risk of medication-related problems.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Application of behavioural theories, models, and frameworks in pharmacy practice research based on published evidence: a scoping review.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024Article
- Exploring the pharmacists' role in optimising antithrombotic therapy in primary care: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Learning From Consultations Conducted by Community Pharmacists in Northern Ireland for Nonprescription Sildenafil: A Qualitative Study Using the Theoretical Domains Framework.Sexual medicine · 2021Article
- Factors Facilitating and Hindering Development of a Medication Use Review Service in Eastern Europe and Iran-Cross-Sectional Exploratory Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Turkish community pharmacists' behavioral determinants in provision of pharmaceutical care to elderly patients.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2021Article
- Perspectives of community pharmacists in Pakistan about practice change and implementation of extended pharmacy services: a mixed method study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2021Article
- Medicines use review service in community pharmacies in Spain: REVISA project.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2021Article
- Cardiovascular disease risk prevention services by pharmacists in Saudi Arabia: what do policymakers and opinion leaders think?Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2021Article
- Qualitative analysis of community pharmacists' opinions on their involvement in reducing potentially inappropriate prescribing.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The Medicines use review (MUR) service, provided by community pharmacists, seeks to optimise patients' use of medicines. There is limited evidence on the clinical effectiveness of this service. Structuring MURs to include an assessment of prescribing appropriateness, facilitated by a validated prescribing screening tool, has the capacity to enhance this service. Objective To explore community pharmacists' views on the facilitators and barriers towards the utilisation of a screening tool as a guide to conducting structured MURs. Setting Community Pharmacy, Northern Ireland. Method Using the 14 domain Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), semi-structured interviews were conducted with community pharmacists. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the Framework method. Main Outcome Measure Pharmacists' views towards utilisation of a screening tool as a guide to conducting structured MURs. Results Based on the analysis of 15 interviews, 11 TDF domains ('Knowledge', 'Skills', 'Social and professional role and identity', 'Beliefs about capabilities', 'Beliefs about consequences', 'Reinforcement', 'Goals', 'Memory, attention and decision process', 'Environmental context and resources', 'Social influences', 'Behavioural regulation') were deemed relevant. Facilitators included: knowledge of patients, clinical knowledge, perceived professional role, patients' clinical outcomes, influence of peers. Barriers included: prioritisation of other clinical activities, inability to access patients' clinical information, perceived alienation from the primary healthcare team and staffing issues. Conclusions Using the TDF, key facilitators and barriers were identified in the use of a screening tool as a guide to conducting MURs. These findings may assist in further development of MURs as a means to optimise patients' medicines use.
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.