Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38456180›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2024

Professional stigma towards clients with methamphetamine use disorder - a qualitative study.

Ali Makki, Carolyn Day, Betty B Chaar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Ali MakkiFaculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney School of Pharmacy, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6945-8346
Carolyn DayFaculty of Medicine and Health Addiction Medicine, Central Clinical School, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4277-1412
Betty B ChaarProfessionalism Committee School of Pharmacy FMH, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney School of Pharmacy, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8757-9403

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Methamphetamine use disorder (MUD) is associated with poor health outcomes. Pharmacists play a role in delivery of substance use treatment, with several studies having examined their attitudes to people with opioid use disorder, but little is known about their attitude towards people with MUD. This study aimed to explore pharmacists' perspectives on the provision of services to clients with MUD. Methods: A convenience sampling strategy was used to recruit community pharmacists across Sydney, Australia. Semi structured interviews examined views and ideas of pharmacists surrounding the treatment and management of MUD, followed by coding of transcribed interview data by all members of the research team. Results: Nineteen pharmacists completed the interviews. The main theme identified was stigma held by healthcare professionals. The almost unanimous perception amongst pharmacists was fear and apprehension towards people with MUD, including underlying assumptions of criminality, misinformation regarding people with MUD, and lack of education and knowledge surrounding MUD. Conclusion: A substantial amount of stigma towards people with MUD was found in this study. Negative attitudes by healthcare professionals can perpetuate healthcare disparities and impede the accessibility of future treatment programs for people with MUD. Appropriate educational interventions on MUD for pharmacists are needed.

Indexed as

Methamphetamine use disorderpharmacyqualitative studiesstigmasubstance use disorders

Identifiers

PMID38456180
PMCPMC10919299

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.