Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30879215›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2019

Pharmacists' views on the upscheduling of codeine-containing analgesics to 'prescription only' medicines in Australia.

John Mishriky, Ieva Stupans, Vincent Chan

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Overview of this issue: "Pain management in an opioid crisis".International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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.

John MishrikySchool of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.
Ieva StupansSchool of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.
Vincent ChanSchool of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia. vincent.chan@rmit.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5536-1565

Funding

Reckitt Benckiser N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Codeine is the most commonly used opioid worldwide, and is available over-the-counter (OTC) in many countries. There is continual debate regarding the risk:benefit profile for OTC codeine. In Australia, codeine containing analgesics became 'prescription only medicine' from February 2018. However, there is currently limited knowledge on the views of community pharmacists on this upscheduling and the perceived impacts on clinical practice. Objective To investigate the views of community pharmacists on the recent codeine upscheduling in Australia. Setting Community pharmacists in Australia, predominately recruited from Victoria. Method A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted using a pre-tested customised anonymous self-administered online questionnaire between March and May 2018. To capture a broad range of demographics, pharmacists were recruited via local industry contacts and the Pharmaceutical Society newsletter, with further recruitment through snowball sampling. Main outcome measure Pharmacists' opinions to targeted questions regarding the perceived advantages and disadvantages of the recent 2018 codeine rescheduling from both their perspectives and their perceived impact on patients. Results A total of 113 pharmacists completed the survey. Approximately 43% of pharmacists agreed/strongly agreed that they believed upscheduling will positively impact their ability to manage pain; while 30% were neutral. Approximately 54% of pharmacists agreed/strongly agreed that they believed upscheduling will positively benefit their patients; while 25% were neutral. Perceived advantages for codeine upscheduling included: increased pharmacist/patient engagement, and less codeine use leading to better overall risk:benefit outcome; while disadvantages included: fewer analgesic options, and increased burden for patients, General Practitioners, and the health system. Conclusion This study showed that the current views on the recent codeine upscheduling are quite mixed, with both advantages and disadvantages perceived. Improving education and up-skilling in this space is essential.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAdultAgedAnalgesics, OpioidCodeineCommunity Pharmacy ServicesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPharmacistsSurveys and QuestionnairesVictoriaYoung AdultAnalgesics, OpioidCodeineAustraliaCodeineOTCPharmacists’ viewsPOMPrescription-onlyUpscheduling

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.