Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32215198›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in drug safety2020

Education around medication review and deprescribing: a survey of medical and pharmacy students' perspectives.

Alan J Poots, Barry Jubraj, Emily Ward, Amante Wycoco, Nina Barnett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in drug safety, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Geriatric education for pharmacy students: A scoping review.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Current Landscape and Future Directions of Deprescribing and Polypharmacy Practices in Jordan.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Differences in Factors Influencing Deprescribing between Primary Care Providers: Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  14. 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

5 authors.

Alan J PootsPicker Institute Europe, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2331-0904
Barry JubrajKing's College London, London, UK, Medicines Optimization, Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Northwest London, and Medicines Use and Safety Team, NHS Specialist Pharmacy Service, UK.
Emily WardLead Directorate Pharmacist for Medicine and Research, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, 369 Fulham Road, London, SW10 9NH, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7552-6053
Amante WycocoKings College London, London, UK.
Nina BarnettCare of Older People, London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, and Medicines Use and Safety Team, NHS Specialist Pharmacy Service, Middlesex, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research into the practice of medication review is developing across the world in response to the ever-increasing burden of inappropriate polypharmacy. Education, training and support of undergraduates and novice practitioners to equip them to participate in the medication review process could lead to long-term shifts in practice. The purpose of this study was to explore the awareness of pharmacy and medical undergraduates about medication review, deprescribing and polypharmacy, in order to inform improvement strategies. In November 2016, all final-year medical and pharmacy students at a London (UK) university were invited to complete a short questionnaire survey. Qualitative analysis inductively themed free-text comments and quantitative analysis used descriptive statistics to summarize responses, with chi-square tests used to indicate differences between the groups. The overall response rate was 34% (171/500). The terms 'medication review' and 'polypharmacy' were known to the students, whilst the term 'deprescribing' was unfamiliar with no difference between the groups. The term 'medication review' meant different things to the groups: pharmacy students suggested a focus on adherence and patient understanding, whilst medical students focused on interactions and whether medicines were still indicated. The groups differed in their perceptions of who they thought undertook reviews, who identifies potentially inappropriate medicines, who makes the final decision to deprescribe and the frequency of medication reviews. Both groups reported that on qualification they would not be comfortable stopping a medicine without discussion with a senior colleague, but would be comfortable prompting a senior colleague to review. Both groups had some awareness of medication review tools. The meaning of the term 'medication review' differed between the student groups. While medical students focused on clinical aspects, pharmacy students emphasized patient experience. Both groups anticipated a lack of confidence in deprescribing without senior support, highlighting the need for alignment between education and professional development syllabi in a way that combines the variety of professional perspectives. Prompts by juniors could lead to more medication reviews within existing practice, and may give them invaluable experience in reviewing medicines in their future careers as seniors.

Indexed as

deprescribingeducationmedication reviewpolypharmacyundergraduate

Identifiers

PMID32215198
PMCPMC7081458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.