ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2023
Medication use review: does it have a future and potential in Latvia? The opinion of pharmacists after the pilot project.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of medication safety assessment tools for pharmacist-led medication reviews: the Eastern European pilot project.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGiven that the Medication Use Review (MUR) can be used as a tool to improve the quality, safety, and appropriate use of medications, it has been implemented in several countries around the world. The MUR pilot project was carried out in Latvia, followed by this study to identify obstacles, favorable factors, and benefits of this service from the perspective of pharmacists, being one of the key stakeholders.
methodsQualitative data were obtained through a semi-structured focus group interview with pharmacists participating in the project. Inductive thematic analysis was performed on transcript to describe potential gains, obstacles, and prerequisites for implementing the MUR service from the pharmacist's perspective.
resultsLack of payment, cooperation with physicians, problems with patient involvement and insufficiency of competence, were identified as the main barriers to implementation of the MUR service as a pharmacist-led service in community pharmacy. However, there were also contributing factors for MUR service, such as the interest of patients and pharmacists involved in the project, the support from the employer, the benefit for physicians, the improvement of patient health literacy and medication adherence.
conclusionsDespite the potential obstacles, the findings in Latvia, as well as other countries, show that the MUR service contributes to the benefit of patients, pharmacists and also physicians; therefore, further steps should be taken to eliminate obstacles and gain additional insights to implement the MUR service in Latvia.
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.