Trial reportScandinavian journal of primary health care2018
General practitioners' and nurses' views on medication reviews and potentially inappropriate medicines in elderly patients - a qualitative study of reports by educating pharmacists.
Trial report in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- 'You get a different mindset' - primary care physicians' perceptions of interprofessional medication reviews for patients living independently.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Polypharmacy in Older Adults: A Narrative Review of Clinical Risks, Deprescribing Strategies, and Interdisciplinary Management.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Profiling chronic diseases and hospitalizations in older home care recipients: a nationwide cohort study in Sweden.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
- Association between recorded medication reviews in primary care and adequate drug treatment management - a cross-sectional study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2021Article
- Potentially inappropriate primary care prescribing in people with chronic kidney disease: a cross-sectional analysis of a large population cohort.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021Article
- Acceptability of a Novel Telemedication Review for Older Adults in Nursing Homes in France: A Qualitative Study.Clinical interventions in aging · 2021Article
- Drug-disease interactions in Swedish senior primary care patients were dominated by non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs and hypertension - a population-based registry study.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2020Article
- Unburdening dementia - a basic social process grounded theory based on a primary care physician survey from 25 countries.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2020Article
- Facilitators and barriers for performing comprehensive medication reviews and follow-up by multiprofessional teams in older hospitalised patients.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Article
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
objectiveThe aim with this study was to understand more about how general practitioners (GPs) and nurses in primary care experience their work with medication reviews in elderly patients.
designThis qualitative study was nested within a cluster randomised trial and analysed narrative and unstructured diaries written by two pharmacists who performed academic detailing, i.e. educational outreach visits in primary care. The educational sessions dealt with potentially inappropriate medicines, and stimulated interprofessional dialogue in relation to medication reviews. The purpose of the diaries was to document and structure the pedagogical process of academic detailing and contained quotes from 194 GP and 113 nurse participants in the sessions, and the pharmacists' reflections. The data was explored using thematic analysis.
settingThirty-three primary care practices in Stockholm, Sweden. SUBJECTS: GPs and nurses working in primary care.
main outcome measuresThematic descriptions of academic detailing by pharmacists.
resultsFive themes were identified: 1) Complexity in 3 'P': patients, pharmacotherapy, and primary care; 2) What, when, who? Clash between GPs' and nurses' experiences and guidelines; 3) Real-world problems and less-than-ideal solutions; 4) Eureka? Experiences with different steps during a medication review; and 5) Threats to GP autonomy.
conclusionGPs and nurses should participate in the construction and release of guidelines in order to increase their usability in clinical practice. Future research should analyse if alternative strategies such as condensed medical reviews and feedback on prescribing are easier to implement in primary care. Key points Complex medication reviews have been introduced on a large scale in Swedish primary care, but knowledge on GPs' and nurses' views on such reviews is lacking. In the context of primary care alternative strategies such as condensed medication reviews and feedback on prescribing may be more applicable than medication reviews according to guidelines. GPs and nurses should make contributions to the development of guidelines on medication reviews in order to increase their usability in clinical practice.
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.