Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30593557›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Qualitative study using interviews and focus groups to explore the current and potential for antimicrobial stewardship in community pharmacy informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework.

Leah Ffion Jones, Rebecca Owens, Anna Sallis, Diane Ashiru-Oredope, Tracey Thornley, Nick A Francis, Chris Butler, Cliodna A M McNulty

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Bridging knowledge and practice: Antimicrobial Stewardship by community pharmacists in New Zealand.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2026
    Article
  5. "Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Leah Ffion JonesPrimary Care Unit, Public Health England, Gloucester, UK.
Rebecca OwensPrimary Care Unit, Public Health England, Gloucester, UK.
Anna SallisBehavioural Insights Team, Public Health England, London, UK.
Diane Ashiru-OredopeHCAI & AMR, Public Health England, London, UK.
Tracey ThornleyBoots UK, Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Nick A FrancisSchool of Medicine, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK.
Chris ButlerNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
Cliodna A M McNultyPrimary Care Unit, Public Health England, Gloucester, UK.
Primary Health Care · QAPublic Health England · GBIndiana University School of MedicineNuffield Health · GBWalgreens Boots Alliance (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCommunity pharmacists and their staff have the potential to contribute to antimicrobial stewardship (AMS). However, their barriers and opportunities are not well understood. The aim was to investigate the experiences and perceptions of community pharmacists and their teams around AMS to inform intervention development.

designInterviews and focus groups were used to explore the views of pharmacists, pharmacy staff, general practitioners (GPs), members of pharmacy organisations and commissioners. The questioning schedule was developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework which helped inform recommendations to facilitate AMS in community pharmacy.

results8 GPs, 28 pharmacists, 13 pharmacy staff, 6 representatives from pharmacy organisations in England and Wales, and 2 local stakeholders participated.Knowledge and skills both facilitated or hindered provision of self-care and compliance advice by different grades of pharmacy staff. Some staff were not aware of the impact of giving self-care and compliance advice to help control antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The pharmacy environment created barriers to AMS; this included lack of time of well-qualified staff leading to misinformation from underskilled staff to patients about the need for antibiotics or the need to visit the GP, this was exacerbated by lack of space. AMS activities were limited by absent diagnoses on antibiotic prescriptions.Several pharmacy staff felt that undertaking patient examinations, questioning the rationale for antibiotic prescriptions and performing audits would allow them to provide more tailored AMS advice.

conclusionsInterventions are required to overcome a lack of qualified staff, time and space to give patients AMS advice. Staff need to understand how self-care and antibiotic compliance advice can help control AMR. A multifaceted educational intervention including information for staff with feedback about the advice given may help. Indication for a prescription would enable pharmacists to provide more targeted antibiotic advice. Commissioners should consider the pharmacists' role in examining patients, and giving advice about antibiotic prescriptions.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntimicrobial StewardshipAttitude of Health PersonnelCommunity Pharmacy ServicesFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedProfessional RoleQualitative ResearchUnited KingdomYoung AdultAnti-Bacterial Agentsantibioticsantimicrobial stewardshipcommon infectionscommunity pharmacyqualitative researchself-care

Identifiers

PMID30593557
PMCPMC6318531
OpenAlexW2906741557

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.