Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35676011›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2022

Barriers and facilitators to implementation of non-medical independent prescribing in primary care in the UK: a qualitative systematic review.

Judith Edwards, Melaine Coward, Nicola Carey

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of prescribing by dietitians and therapeutic radiographers in England.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. A Qualitative Study to Explore Global Trends in Clinical Pharmacy Practice.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Judith EdwardsSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Guildford, UK j.a.edwards@surrey.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6531-1315
Melaine CowardSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Guildford, UK.
Nicola CareyDepartment of Nursing and Midwifery, University of the Highlands and Islands, Inverness, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo support workforce deficits and rising demand for medicines, independent prescribing (IP) by nurses, pharmacists and allied health professionals is a key component of workforce transformation in UK healthcare. This systematic review of qualitative research studies used a thematic synthesis approach to explore stakeholders' views on IP in primary care and identify barriers and facilitators influencing implementation.

settingUK primary/community care.

participantsInclusion criteria were UK qualitative studies of any design, published in the English language. Six electronic databases were searched between January 2010 and September 2021, supplemented by reference list searching. Papers were screened, selected and quality-appraised using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs. Study data were extracted to a bespoke table and two reviewers used NVivo software to code study findings. An inductive thematic synthesis was undertaken to identify descriptive themes and interpret these into higher order analytical themes. The Diffusion of Innovations and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research were guiding theoretical anchors. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: N/A.

resultsTwenty-three articles addressing nurse, pharmacist and physiotherapist IP were included. Synthesis identified barriers and facilitators in four key stages of implementation: (1) 'Preparation', (2) 'Training', (3) 'Transition' and 4) 'Sustainment'. Enhancement, substitution and role-specific implementation models reflected three main ways that the IP role was used in primary care.

conclusionsIn order to address global deficits, there is increasing need to optimise use of IP capability. Although the number of independent prescribers continues to grow, numerous barriers to implementation persist. A more coordinated and targeted approach is key to overcoming barriers identified in the four stages of implementation and would help ensure that IP is recognised as an effective approach to help alleviate workforce shortfalls in the UK, and around the world. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019124400.

Indexed as

PharmacistsPrimary Health CareHumansQualitative ResearchUnited KingdomHealth policyOrganisational developmentPRIMARY CARE

Identifiers

PMID35676011
PMCPMC9185484

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.