ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2022
A qualitative study investigating Stakeholders' perspectives on a professional body of pharmacy.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With the advent of "shared regulation" over a decade ago in healthcare to allow for greater public input, the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland (PSI) shed its professional leadership role. Since then there has been no unified voice for the profession of pharmacy in Ireland, which is in stark contrast to other jurisdictions and allied healthcare professions, where both public and practitioner are catered for in separate entities. This is an issue which has received little academic scrutiny thus far, and therefore this study provides a unique opportunity for stakeholders to submit their views. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders working in representative bodies in Ireland using purposive and snowball sampling. Each interview was audio-video recorded and transcribed accordingly for six phase thematic analysis. Results: Interviews were conducted with thirteen participants working in diverse sectors relevant to professional representation. There was a consensus regarding the existing void in the pharmacy profession, and how this has had a detrimental impact on the development of the profession and pharmacists' position in the Irish healthcare system. Different structural models were proposed by participants and potential financial and logistical hurdles for the profession to overcome were considered. Conclusion: The study provides a unique review of stakeholders' perspectives who had clear desires for change. The manner in which such change will occur is a consideration for the profession and policy makers going forward.
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.