ArticleBMC health services research2019
Cross verification of prescribing trends through loop evaluation of physicians, patients and medical store personnel.
Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Antibiotics Use Patterns in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review Analysis.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingPooled it
- What impact does medicines shortages have on patients? A qualitative study exploring patients' experience and views of healthcare professionals.BMC health services research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrescription connects physician, patient and community pharmacy personnel who can help in understanding prescribing pattern. The present study was aimed to get an insight of viewpoints of all members involved in progression of events from prescription to drug purchase, i.e., physician, patient and medical-store personals regarding the prescription pattern in Pakistan.
methodsTherefore, a cross-sectional study was conducted in four provinces and capital territory (Islamabad) of Pakistan to evaluate the perception of physicians, patients and medical stores/pharmacy personnel of the prescribing trends in Pakistan.
resultsResponse rate was higher from Punjab and lower in Sindh. Responses of 981 walk-in patients with 393 physicians and 618 medical stores/pharmacies were received and statistically evaluated. The majority of physicians, patients and pharmacists/medical store personnel considered the medicines of multinational manufacturers as more effective. Physicians considered their prescribing cost-effective. However, majority of patients as well as pharmacists/medical store personnel strongly disagreed or disagreed with this notion that physicians prescribe cheap medicines. Furthermore, physicians and patients reported that medicines of local companies were not as effective as the medicines of multinational manufacturers, which were contrary to what pharmacists thought. Majority of physicians disagreed that their prescribing was under the influence of medical stores in their vicinity. The response of most of the patients (40.5%) was in line with that of physicians whereas 32% pharmacist/medical store personnel agreed. Nearly half of the physicians strongly agreed or agreed that patients demand medicines of multinational companies. Contrarily, a majority of patients and medical store personnel denied that patients demand for the medicines of multinational manufacturers.
conclusionThe study highlighted that there was a need to develop policy guidelines at the level of Federal Government and Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan in connection with prescribing practices to reduce the variation in perception of key stakholders involved in drug use process.
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.