ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2019
UK medical students' perspectives on practical prescribing teaching and learning provisions: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in European 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of a preprescribing formative assessment on learning in final-year medical students using hospital inpatient electronic prescribing systems.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Pharmacist Peer-Led Teaching Enhances Medical Undergraduate Prescribing: A Mixed-Methods Study.The clinical teacher · 2025Article
- Confidence in Prescribing Practices: Perspectives of Senior Medical Students and Recent Graduates at Qatar University.Advances in medical education and practice · 2024Article
- The short- and long-term effects of a course on rational drug use: A comparative study between prefinal- and final-year undergraduate medical students who attended the course in different clinical years.Journal of education and health promotion · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo determine medical students' perspectives on the provision for the teaching and learning of processes that lead to and include the writing of a clear, safe and legal prescription (practical prescribing) in UK medical schools.
methodsWe designed a cross-sectional survey of UK medical students in years three, four and five. Students were asked about their experiences and views of practical prescribing teaching and learning they had encountered on their medical course.
resultsA total of 1023 medical students responded (7% response rate), from 25 UK medical schools: 22%, 37% and 41% in the third, fourth and final years, respectively. Teaching of practical prescribing was widespread, with 94.3% of final year (n = 396, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 92-97%), 86.8% of fourth year (n = 328, CI = 83-90%) and 73.8% of third year (n = 166, CI = 67-80%) students reporting they had received it. Availability of this teaching appeared to vary by medical school. Self-directed learning was the most frequently reported mode of delivery (90.9%, n = 809). Validated pre-prescribing and simulation were perceived by students in each year group as the most effective methods. Clinical pharmacologists, clinical pharmacists and junior doctors were perceived by the students as being the most effective professional groups at teaching practical prescribing.
conclusionsUK medical students reported a variety of methods utilised in the teaching and learning of practical prescribing. However, methods they perceived to be very effective (simulation and pre-prescribing) do not appear to be widely available or are only reserved for the final year of study. Combining such methods with involvement of professional groups perceived to be most effective should be explored.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31317216What 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.