Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29909563›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2018

Community pharmacists' perspectives on implementation of Medicines Use Review in Slovenia.

Urska Nabergoj Makovec, Mitja Kos, Nina Pisk

Registry-linked trialAbstract 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. It is linked to trial NCT04417400 (Benefits of Medicines Use Review Service in Slovenia), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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.

NCT04417400 nacompletednot on this map

Benefits of Medicines Use Review Service in Slovenia: a Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorMitja KosRan2017 to 2017Enrolled169ConditionsMedicines Use Review Service, Multiple Medication, Adherence, MedicationArmsmedicines use review
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

3 authors.

Urska Nabergoj MakovecFaculty of Pharmacy, Chair of Social Pharmacy, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Mitja KosFaculty of Pharmacy, Chair of Social Pharmacy, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Nina PiskGorenjske lekarne, Kranj, Slovenia. nina.pisk@gorenjske-lekarne.si.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background In December 2014 Slovene Chamber of Pharmacies defined procedures for Medicines Use Review (MUR) in Slovenia, together with an educational program and certification to ensure pharmacists' competency to perform MUR. The first 15 pharmacists were certified in June 2015 and implemented the service in their practices. Objective This study aimed to understand the implementation of MUR from the perspectives of the first community pharmacists providing the service in practice. Methods A focus group with first MUR providers took place in February 2016, 6 months after the first pharmacists were certified to provide MUR service. Based on regional and institutional criteria ten pharmacists from the first certified group were chosen and invited to participate in guided discussion, where the development and assurance of competencies, the provision of the service in practice and the future of the service were addressed. The discussion was voice recorded with written consent obtained from all participants. Analysis was performed in NVivo 11 software with the use of inductive qualitative content analysis approach. Main outcome measure Views, challenges and opportunities for the Medicines Use Review service in Slovenia. Results Seven pharmacists attended the focus group, 5 from public pharmaceutical institution and 2 from concessionary pharmacies. Three main thematical categories were identified: quality assurance of MUR, different stakeholders' perceptions of MUR and MURs' management. Pharmacists' broad knowledge in pharmacotherapy was emphasized as the basis of quality provision and main advantage in performing MUR in comparison with other healthcare professions. Recognisability of MUR among different stakeholders should be improved with comprehensive approach in marketing of the service. Positive patient feedback was reported, however persuading them to attend MUR presented a challenge. Better management of the service, especially in terms of work organization, would facilitate MUR provision. Conclusion Overall, positive experiences with implementation and provision were reported. To ensure MUR sustainability, the service needs to become more widely known and opportunities must be provided for continuing professional development of providing pharmacists.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCommunity Pharmacy ServicesAdultDrug Utilization ReviewFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMalePharmacistsProfessional RoleQualitative ResearchSloveniaCommunity pharmacistImplementation researchMedicines Use ReviewPerspectivesSlovenia

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.