ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2024
Development of a medication review intervention by seconding a hospital pharmacist to primary care.
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 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.
- Exploring the experience of managers, employees, and pharmacists in clinical pharmacy in primary care using the SEIPS model: A focus group study.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2025Article
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: Medication reviews (MRs) are a well-described initiative that improves health outcomes for polypharmacy patients. However, there is limited knowledge about the performance of medication reviews carried out in general practice especially under the leadership of hospital clinical pharmacists. When developing complex interventions, such as MRs, it is essential to describe the development process to ensure transparency and avoid research waste. Objective: Thus, this study aimed to describe the steps of developing a new MR intervention targeting general practice to ensure transparency and transferability. Methods: A stepwise approach inspired by the Medical Research Council framework was utilised in the process, covering two of the phases, i.e., development and feasibility, divided into four steps: 1) intervention drafting by a literature search, 2) expert opinion, 3) pilot testing in general practice clinics, and 4) evaluation of quantitative MR data. Results: Based on the results from the first three steps, four main themes which influenced the success of the MR intervention were identified: general practitioner resources, patient involvement, implementation difficulties and interdisciplinarity. These themes guided the pilot evaluation in step four. Conclusion: A new feasible, complex MR intervention utilising clinical pharmacists in general practice involving hospital clinical pharmacists in a real-life setting was developed.
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.