Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33484398›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2021

Qualitative study of medication review in Flanders, Belgium among community pharmacists and general practitioners.

Anneleen Robberechts, Céline De Petter, Lindsey Van Loon, Silas Rydant, Stephane Steurbaut, Guido De Meyer, Hans De Loof

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Patient experiences and opinions on medication review: a qualitative study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Assessment of Pharmacists' Willingness to Conduct Medication Use Reviews in Poland.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  16. 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

7 authors.

Anneleen RobberechtsRoyal Pharmacists Association of Antwerp (KAVA), Consciencestraat 41, B-2018, Antwerpen, Belgium. anneleen.robberechts@uantwerpen.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3342-3870
Céline De PetterLaboratory of Physiopharmacology, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610, Antwerp, Belgium.
Lindsey Van LoonLaboratory of Physiopharmacology, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610, Antwerp, Belgium.
Silas RydantRoyal Pharmacists Association of Antwerp (KAVA), Consciencestraat 41, B-2018, Antwerpen, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8437-7507
Stephane SteurbautResearch Group Clinical Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy, Centre for Pharmaceutical Research, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 103, B-1090, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4586-6919
Guido De MeyerLaboratory of Physiopharmacology, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3848-8702
Hans De LoofLaboratory of Physiopharmacology, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4488-551X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective Examining the implementation barriers and facilitators of this service as provided by Belgian community pharmacists in collaboration with general practitioners. Setting Community pharmacies in Flanders. Method Qualitative study through interviews of pharmacists and general practitioners. Main outcome measure Opinions and experiences of pharmacists and general practitioners about type 3 medication review. Results Sixteen community pharmacists and thirteen general practitioners were interviewed and generally gave a positive assessment of the project. The general practitioners saw the pharmaceutical and pharmacotherapeutic recommendations of the pharmacists as an added value for the patients. The pharmacists indicated that performing an medication review was time-consuming, but that it improved their professional relationship with general practitioners and patients. They reported obstacles in obtaining information: cumbersome access to individual patient data (laboratory values) and difficulties in finding and choosing adequate medical information sources. Moreover, pharmacists indicated that there is a need for adequate reimbursement and additional training to make the implementation sustainable. Conclusion Both pharmacists and general practitioners were enthusiastic about medication reviews. The implementation improved the interprofessional collaboration. However, important barriers remain, such as the considerable investment of time and the difficulty in gathering all the necessary information. The sustainable implementation of type 3 medication review in Belgium requires adequate reimbursement and additional training.

Indexed as

Community Pharmacy ServicesGeneral PractitionersAttitude of Health PersonnelBelgiumHumansPharmacistsProfessional RoleBelgiumCommunity pharmacy servicesGeneral practitionersMedication reviewPharmaceutical servicesPharmacistsQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID33484398

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.