SynthesisThe patient2024
Patient Preferences for Pharmacy Services: A Systematic Review of Studies Based on Discrete Choice Experiments.
Synthesis in The patient, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantifying patient preferences for inpatient pharmacist consultation: a multi-center discrete choice experiment in Sichuan, China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Research on the impact of hospital organizational behavior on physicians'patient-centered care.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
- Construction and validation of an instrument to identify barriers to implementing pharmaceutical care.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 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
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveIn recent years, the mission of pharmacists has evolved and the model of the caregiver-patient relationship has been challenged by a new patient-centered approach. A challenge to providing personalized care is the assessment of patient preferences. We aimed to systematically identify published discrete choice experiments related to patient preferences for pharmacy services and to assess the quality of the selected articles.
methodsA systematic review of the literature was conducted in two databases (PubMed and Embase, until March 2023) according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. The quality of the selected articles was assessed according to the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research conjoint analysis checklist.
resultsAmong the 421 articles identified, 16 published studies were included and analyzed. They were mostly published in pharmaceutical (n = 6), economic (n = 4), and public health (n = 4) journals. Only two articles concerned the field of hospital pharmacy. Only five presented the specific pharmacy service studied: filling of prescriptions, management of symptoms, treatment delivery, and components of pharmacist counseling. Five articles focused on pharmacy services related to a specific disease. None fully fulfilled the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research checklist, only partially fulfilled.
conclusionsAccording to the identified studies, cost, time, logistics (organizational criteria), and pharmacists' courtesy and skills were consistently cited as factors influencing patient preferences for pharmacy services. The disclosure of patient preferences is a complex and under-researched topic, especially in the field of pharmacy, but interest is growing. As the mission of pharmacists evolves to bring them closer to patients, the better understanding of patient preferences in pharmacy services will allow for better targeting and better integration of patient profiles in patient management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38093090What 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.