ArticleBMJ open2024
Alienation and/or anomie in pharmacists: a protocol for a narrative systematic review.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Investigate the link between workplace dynamics and job satisfaction among Saudi pharmacists.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEpisodes of alienation and/or anomie in pharmacists have been reported in historical accounts since the 19th century. Alienation and anomie are distinct types of psychological or social ills where people are problematically separated from, or their skills and values are misaligned with, others and their environment. Alienation and/or anomie can be important precursors of many negative work experiences, including job dissatisfaction, burnout and/or intention to leave. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We aim to study alienation and/or anomie in pharmacists from across the globe, reviewing all types of methodological designs, published in peer-reviewed journals, including all primary qualitative, quantitative and/or mixed-method research studies. We will narratively describe any focuses, causes, associated factors and/or consequences of alienation and/or anomie. We will identify all published peer-reviewed research by searching seven electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsychINFO, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus) and Google Scholar in May 2024. Extensive hand and citation-searching will also take place. Two independent reviewers will identify eligible studies, conduct a critical appraisal of the study conduct, extract data and synthesise reported findings by narratively exploring relationships within and between studies. The synthesis will follow a hybrid thematic analysis. Initially, we will deductively structure the findings according to six themes from underpinning alienation and anomie theory: Care, Values, Meaning, Recognition, Autonomy and Shared Responsibility. This structure may thereafter be inductively adapted, by creating new additional themes, if required from the data. A GRADE Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of the Qualitative research approach will be used to determine a confidence profile of each theme. A thematic map showing the links between themes will also be produced. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical permission is not required, as this study uses data from published research. Dissemination will be through publication in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024536336.
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.