ArticleNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2019
Adherence to guideline recommendations for asthma care in community pharmacies: actual and needed performance.
Article in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmacy-led interventions to reverse and prevent prescribing cascades in primary care: a proof-of-concept study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Development of a community pharmacy-based intervention for patients with uncontrolled asthma.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pharmaceutical care guidelines aim to provide recommendations for pharmaceutical care, reduce unwanted pharmacy practice variation and ultimately improve the quality of healthcare. This study evaluated community pharmacists' adherence to recommendations for the provision of care to asthma patients with first dispensing and follow-up refill encounters in The Netherlands. Data were pharmacists' self-assessment of adherence to guideline recommendations, independent observations of dispensing encounters and a nationwide questionnaire on pharmacists' views on the desirable (clinical) necessity of applying guideline recommendations to their patient population. The 21 pharmacists who performed self-assessment judged their adherence concerning inhalation instructions as high. The lowest scores were reported for recommendations to collect additional information on the type of lung disease and for asking patients' expectations, wishes and concerns. Sixty-eight dispensing encounters were observed. In 83% of the 35 first dispensing observations, inhalation instruction was provided. This percentage was lower (62%) at refill dispensings. During all encounters, pharmacy staff seldom explored patients' perceptions or responded to patients' expectations, wishes and concerns. One hundred and four pharmacists completed the feasibility questionnaire. Pharmacists judged that all patients should receive inhalation instruction at first dispensing. They regarded it necessary to check on patients' expectations, wishes and concerns regarding the treatment for only up to 70% of the patients. More efforts on guideline implementation are needed, especially on follow-up dispensings and on gaining relevant information from patients and other healthcare professionals. Pharmacists still have opportunities to grow in applying a patient-tailored approach and exploring patients' individual needs, rather than providing practical information.
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.