Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35479849›Full record

ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2021

Allergic rhinitis self-care advice in community pharmacies: A simulated patient study.

Rian Lelie-van der Zande, Ellen S Koster, Martina Teichert, Marcel L Bouvy

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Reshaping the Management of Allergic Rhinitis in Primary Care: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  4. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rian Lelie-van der ZandeDepartment of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Ellen S KosterDepartment of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Martina TeichertDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy & Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Marcel L BouvyDepartment of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Utrecht University · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Pharmacists and pharmacy assistants can support consumers by identifying minor ailments and providing evidence-based advice about treatment options. In the Netherlands, advice is based on national minor ailment guidelines and structured WWHAM questions (Who, What, How long, Action, Medication). Objectives: To study whether pharmacy assistants provide guideline-compliant advice for allergic rhinitis based on WWHAM and condition-specific questions (When and Familiarity) and their association with appropriate self-care advice. Methods: A retrospective study of the assessments of simulated patient (SP) visits regarding one condition- and two symptom-based cases of allergic rhinitis in Dutch community pharmacies. Pharmacies that participated in 2014, 2016 and 2018 were selected. SPs documented their observations of the problem analysis, dispensing and client interaction on a standardized scoresheet. Dispensing of an oral antihistamine according to the guideline recommendation was considered as the correct outcome. Chi-square tests were used to analyze differences in scores for problem analysis of pharmacies with correct and incorrect advice provision in 2014 and 2018. Predictors for correct outcome were identified by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: Data from 673 pharmacies were available for all three years. In 2014 and 2018, problems were presented as a symptom (running nose), and 41.2% and 21.1% of pharmacies dispensed an antihistamine. For the condition-based problem (allergy) in 2016, 96.0% of participating pharmacies dispensed an antihistamine. Both in 2014 and 2018, each additional problem analysis question increased the odds ratio of providing correct advice. Questions asked about 'hay fever symptoms', 'medication', 'when symptoms occurred', and 'familiar symptoms' were significant predictors of correct advice provision. Conclusions: Most pharmacies provided appropriate advice for a condition-based request but less than half of them provided appropriate advice for a symptom-based request. More questions asked was associated with an increased chance of providing correct advice. Addition of condition-specific questions may improve the WWHAM-method.

Indexed as

Allergic rhinitisMystery shoppingPatient simulationPharmacy assistantSelf-careSimulated patient

Identifiers

PMID35479849
PMCPMC9031372
OpenAlexW3209108752

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.