Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33499869›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Prescribers' perspectives on including reason for use information on prescriptions and medication labels: a qualitative thematic analysis.

Colin Whaley, Ashley Bancsi, Joanne Man-Wai Ho, Catherine M Burns, Kelly Grindrod

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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.

Colin WhaleyUniversity of Waterloo School of Pharmacy, Health Sciences Campus, 200 University Ave West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada. colin.whaley@uwaterloo.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9651-1312
Ashley BancsiUniversity of Waterloo School of Pharmacy, Health Sciences Campus, 200 University Ave West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.
Joanne Man-Wai HoDivisions of Geriatric Medicine & Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.
Catherine M BurnsDepartment of Systems Design Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.
Kelly GrindrodUniversity of Waterloo School of Pharmacy, Health Sciences Campus, 200 University Ave West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe indication for prescribing a particular medication, or its reason for use (RFU) is a crucial piece of information for all those involved in the circle of care. Research has shown that sharing RFU information with physicians, pharmacists and patients improves patient safety and patient adherence, however RFU is rarely added on prescriptions by prescribers or on medication labels for patients to reference.

methodsQualitative interviews were conducted with 20 prescribers in Southern Ontario, Canada, to learn prescribers' current attitudes on the addition of RFU on prescriptions and medication labels. A trained interviewer used a semi-structured interview guide for each interview. The interviews explored how the sharing of RFU information would impact prescribers' workflows and practices. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically coded.

resultsThe analysis yielded four main themes: Current Practice, Future Practice, Changing Culture, and Collaboration. Most of the prescribers interviewed do not currently add RFU to prescriptions. Prescribers were open to sharing RFU with colleagues via a regional database but wanted the ability to provide context for the prescribed medication within the system. Many prescribers were wary of the impact of adding RFU on their workflow but felt it could save time by avoiding clarifying questions from pharmacists. Increased interprofessional collaboration, increased patient understanding of prescribed medications, avoiding guesswork when determining indications and decreased misinterpretation regarding RFU were cited by most prescribers as benefits to including RFU information.

conclusionsPrescribers were generally open to sharing RFU and clearly identified the benefits to pharmacists and patients if added. Critically, they also identified benefits to their own practices. These results can be used to guide the implementation of future initiatives to promote the sharing of RFU in healthcare teams.

Indexed as

Drug LabelingDrug PrescriptionsHumansOntarioPatient Care TeamPatient SafetyPrescription DrugsPrescription Drugs

Identifiers

PMID33499869
PMCPMC7836591

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.