ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2024
Pharmacy stakeholders' views and experiences of the credentialing of advanced or specialist pharmacist practice: A mixed methods systematic review.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient perspectives on atrial fibrillation management and pharmacist roles in outpatient clinics: a qualitative study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Developing pharmacist practice through a pilot family practice preceptorship programme: a prospective quantitative pre-post evaluation.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Developing a core competency framework for psychiatric pharmacists: a Europe-wide e-Delphi consensus study conducted by the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy Mental Health Special Interest Group.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Grounding clinical supervision in advanced pharmacy practice: a new conceptual model.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Credentialing of advanced and specialist pharmacist practice (ASPP) provides essential quality assurance for ASPP, which is significantly different to entry-level practice and is developing worldwide. Several credentialing models are in place or under development internationally. Synthesis of the views and experiences of pharmacists and other relevant stakeholders on credentialing is an important research gap. Objectives: To determine pharmacy stakeholders' views and experiences of ASPP credentialing and to explore facilitators and barriers to credentialing implementation and uptake. Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute convergent integrated approach for mixed methods systematic reviews was followed. The review protocol was pre-registered with PROSPERO. Five electronic databases (Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar) were searched from inception to August 2022 for qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods studies that reported the views and experiences of pharmacy stakeholders on ASPP credentialing. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to quality appraise included studies. Thematic synthesis was undertaken to analyse and integrate data from included studies. All screening and data analysis steps were performed by two reviewers independently, with additional author input where required. Results: Sixty studies were included, after screening titles and abstracts ( Conclusions: This systematic review is the first to synthesise pharmacy stakeholders' views and experiences of ASPP credentialing. A conceptual framework highlights contextual factors, facilitators, barriers, and inter-relationships which should be considered by pharmacists, policymakers, and other key stakeholders when implementing ASPP credentialing.
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.