ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2022
Pharmacists' views on the impact of the Falsified Medicines Directive on community pharmacies: A cross-sectional survey.
Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of global falsified medicines regulation on healthcare stakeholders in the legitimate pharmaceutical supply chain: a systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Community pharmacists' views on the implementation of a national electronic prescription transfer system to pharmacies: A cross-sectional survey.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Article
- Assessing knowledge, attitudes, and practices and demand-side interventions for combating substandard and falsified medicines: a scoping review.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2025Review
- An observational study of the cause and frequency of prescription rework in community pharmacies.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Falsified Medicines Directive (FMD) was implemented to minimise the circulation of falsified medicines in the legal pharmaceutical supply chain. Whilst pharmacists are involved in the final step of the FMD requirements with the decommissioning of medicines at the point of supply to patients, limited research has been conducted to investigate the impact of fulfilling these requirements on the relevant stakeholders. Objective: To examine community pharmacists' views on how the FMD has affected their practice. Methods: An online survey was disseminated via email in June 2020 to pharmacists in Ireland ( Results: In total, 618 valid responses were received (13.1% response rate). Most perceived that FMD requirements increased waiting times for patients (82%) and reduced time interacting with patients (65%). Only 28% agreed/strongly agreed that the Conclusions: Key stakeholder engagement is required to optimise the implementation and integration of the FMD procedures into community pharmacy practice with minimal impact on dispensing and without compromising patient care.
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.