ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2019
Prescribers' views and experiences of using direct acting oral anticoagulants in the management of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: A survey in remote and rural Scotland.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Prescribing behavior of Bavarian general practitioners at the inpatient-outpatient interface within the context of the Bavarian active substance agreement-qualitative results of the WirtMed Study].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2022Article
- Prescribers' views and experiences of using direct acting oral anticoagulants in the management of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: A survey in remote and rural Scotland.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Article
- Prescribers' perceptions of benefits and limitations of direct acting oral anticoagulants in non-valvular atrial fibrillation.Pharmacy practiceArticle
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 at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsA recent systematic review highlighted the lack of robust studies on prescribers' perspectives of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The aim was to determine prescribers' views and experiences of prescribing DOACs.
methodsA cross-sectional survey of prescribers in a remote and rural area of Scotland. Survey items were: demographics; prescribing of DOACs; views of potential influences on DOAC prescribing; knowledge of prescribing guidelines; and experiences. Items on potential influences were based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. Data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics, and content analysis of responses to open questions. Principal component analysis was performed on the items of potential influences.
resultsIn total, 154 responses were received, 120 (77.9%) from doctors, 18 (11.7%) from nurse prescribers and 10 (6.4%) from pharmacist prescribers (6 missing). Principal component analysis of the Theoretical Domains Framework items of potential influences gave 4 components. Component scores for (i) role of professionals, their knowledge and skills and (ii) influences on prescribing were positive. Those for (iii) consequences of prescribing and (iv) monitoring for safety and effectiveness were more neutral. There were low levels of agreement for statements relating to DOACs being more effective, safer and cost-effective than warfarin. There were similar responses around the complexity of bleeding management and detection of over and under-anticoagulation.
conclusionThis study has identified several key issues of DOAC prescribing (e.g. bleeding management) hence further emphasis is required in continuing professional development and during guideline implementation and evaluation.
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.