ArticlePloS one2021
Why are self-medication opportunities limited in Austria? An interview study and comparison with other countries.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAustria has high health resource use compared to similar countries. Reclassifying (switching) medicines from prescription to non-prescription can reduce pressure on health resources and aid timely access to medicines. Since Austria is less progressive in this area than many other countries, this research aimed to elucidate enablers and barriers to it reclassifying medicines and make recommendations for change in the context of similar research conducted elsewhere.
methodsQualitative research using a heuristic approach was conducted in Austria in 2018. Informed by their own "insider" and "outsider" knowledge, the authors identified themes from personal interviews with 24 participants, including reclassification committee members, government officials and stakeholders, before comparing these themes with earlier research findings.
resultsSignificant barriers to reclassification included committee conservatism, minimal political support, medical negativity and few company applications. Insufficient transparency about committee decisions, expectations of adverse committee decisions and a limited market discouraged company applications. Austria's 'social partnership' arrangement and consensus decision making aided a conservative approach, but the regulator and an alternative non-committee switch process were enabling. Pharmacy showed mixed interest in reclassification. Suggested improvements include increasing transparency, committee composition changes, encouraging a more evidence-based approach by the committee, more pharmacy undergraduate clinical training, and companies using scientific advisory meetings and submitting high quality applications.
conclusionRemoving barriers to reclassification would facilitate non-prescription availability of medicines and encourage self-care, and could reduce pressure on healthcare resources.
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.