ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2024
Exploring pharmacists' perspectives about substandard and falsified medical products through interviews.
Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using the advantages and avoiding the risks - a public survey about the challenges of online purchases of medicines.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Knowledge, practices, and recognition ability of counterfeit medicines among lebanese community pharmacists during concurrent national crises.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Assessing knowledge, attitudes, and practices and demand-side interventions for combating substandard and falsified medicines: a scoping review.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2025Review
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
Background: The problem with substandard and falsified (SF) medical products may grow in high-income countries when e-commerce of medicines increases. Unauthorized websites offer medicines of insufficient quality. This underscores the importance of evaluating how the problem with SF medical products can be prevented from escalating. However, little is known about what knowledge and experience professionals working primarily with medicines have about the phenomenon. Objective: This study was conducted to explore purposively selected pharmacists' experience and knowledge about SF medical products. Methods: Twelve individual interviews were conducted with purposively selected pharmacists between May 2021 and September 2021. An interview guide was used with specific questions about e-commerce, which focused on exploring pharmacists' experience and knowledge about SF medical products. The interviews lasted, on average, 49 min and were analyzed using inductive qualitative content analysis. Results: A main theme 'Pharmacists as guardians of safe medicines' emerged. This theme consisted of three categories pinpointing 'risk factors', 'protective factors', and 'opportunities for improvement' regarding SF medical products. Findings suggest that pharmacists can play a role in preventing the problem with SF medical products from escalating. Participants emphasized they were in this line of work to help patients and increase patient safety. Conclusions: Pharmacists have the opportunity to empower the public with knowledge about SF medical products since they discuss medicines with many people every day. Awareness of risk factors for SF medical products enables pharmacists to guide patients to avoid risky purchases from unauthorized websites. To do this, better communication, and cooperation with patients and other healthcare professionals are needed.
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.