ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2021
Supporting patients with unlicensed medicine use: Analysing the script schemas for prescribing, pharmaceutical assessment and supply.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Unlicensed "Special" Medicines: Using the Pillar Integration Model to Understand Stakeholder Perspectives Across Care Settings.Integrated pharmacy research & practice · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unlicensed medicines (ULMs) are those which have not received authorisation from a regulator, as such they do not have the same reassurances around safety and efficacy as licensed medicines. This study aimed to explore the use of ULMs from the perspectives of prescribers, pharmacists and patients within the UK National Health Service (NHS) setting. Grounded theory was used as a framework, conducting 28 semi-structured qualitative interviews with prescribers, pharmacists and patients across both primary and secondary care settings. Participants were identified from their known use of ULMs where possible and a theoretical sampling approach was used to support recruitment of participants based on the emergent analysis. Analysis followed a constructivist inductive approach, using constant comparison to develop initial themes. This was followed by two focus groups, one with patients and one with professionals where initial analytic findings were presented to participants to further support the development of themes. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Three sequential schema scripts were identified and used as a framework to explain our findings: ULM prescribing, pharmaceutical assessment of an ULM and ULM supply. Common and divergent events within these scripts were identified and analysed in an attempt to explain similarities and differences across primary and secondary care and between actors. The analysis identified issues around healthcare professional awareness of using ULMs, perceptions of ULM safety, challenges around what information should be provided to patients and by whom and adds to the debate around the place of ULMs in treatment pathways. This study highlights the need for a multidisciplinary conversation about how ULMs should be used in the NHS.
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.