ArticleBMC health services research2021
Considerations of Australian community pharmacists in the provision and implementation of cognitive pharmacy services: a qualitative study.
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 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Community pharmacy transformation under universal health coverage: Implementation barriers, cultural determinants, and cross-national lessons from Japan's ongoing transition - A narrative review.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Review
- Factors related to community pharmacists' intention to provide collaborative deprescribing service for fall-risk medications in older adults: a factorial and theory-based cross-sectional study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Implementation priorities in Australian community pharmacy: A semi-structured survey of Australian pharmacists.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Article
- Article
- Multi-stakeholder perspective on community pharmacy services in Saudi Arabia: A systematic review and meta-analyses for 2010-2020.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2025Review
- Pharmacy stakeholders' views and experiences of the credentialing of advanced or specialist pharmacist practice: A mixed methods systematic review.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2024Article
- Privacy in Community Pharmacies in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Australian community pharmacy service provision factors, stresses and strains: A qualitative study.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2023Article
- Barriers and Facilitators Influencing Real-time and Digital-Based Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions by Community Pharmacists: Qualitative Study Using the Task-Technology Fit Framework.Interactive journal of medical research · 2022Article
- Qualitative exploration of the experiences of community pharmacists delivering the Diabetes MedsCheck service.Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics · 2022Article
- Pharmacist's time spent: Space for Pharmacy-based Interventions and Consultation TimE (SPICE)-an observational time and motion study.BMJ open · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAustralian federally-funded cognitive pharmacy services (CPS) (e.g. medication management and reconciliation services) have not been translated into practice consistently. These health services are purportedly accessible across all Australian community pharmacies, yet are not delivered as often as pharmacists would like. There are international indicators that pharmacists lack the complete behavioural control required to prioritise CPS, despite their desire to deliver them. This requires local investigation.
objectiveTo explore Australian pharmacists' perspectives [1] as CPS providers on the micro level, and [2] on associated meso and macro level CPS implementation issues.
methodsRegistered Australian community pharmacists were recruited via professional organisations and snowball sampling. Data were collected via an online demographic survey and semi-structured interviews until data saturation was reached. Interview transcripts were de-identified then verified by participants. Content analysis was performed to identify provider perspectives on the micro level. Framework analysis using RE-AIM was used to explore meso and macro implementation issues.
resultsTwenty-three participants across Australia gave perspectives on CPS provision. At the micro level, pharmacists did not agree on a single definition of CPS. However, they reported complexity in interactional work and patient considerations, and individual pharmacist factors that affected them when deciding whether to provide CPS. There was an overall deficiency in pharmacy workplace resources reported to be available for implementation and innovation. Use of an implementation evaluation framework suggested CPS implementation is lacking sufficient structural support, whilst reach into target population, service consistency and maintenance for CPS were not specifically considered by pharmacists.
conclusionsThis analysis of pharmacist CPS perspectives suggests slow uptake may be due to a lack of evidence-based, focused, multi-level implementation strategies that take ongoing pharmacist role transition into account. Sustained change may require external change management and implementation support, engagement of frontline clinicians in research, and the development of appropriate pharmacist practice models to support community pharmacists in their CPS roles.
trial registrationThis study was not a clinical intervention trial. It was approved by the University of Technology Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (UTS HREC 19-3417) on the 26th of April 2019.
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.