ArticleBJGP open2025
General Practice Community Pharmacist Consultation Service: an exploratory patient survey.
Article in BJGP open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Assessment of the Effectiveness of Pharmaceutical Advice in Selected Digestive Disorders: Perspectives of Patients and Pharmacists as Part of a Pilot "Minor Ailments" Service.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
backgroundThe General Practice Community Pharmacist Consultation Service (GPCPCS) was established to allow patients with certain minor illnesses to be referred to a community pharmacy for assessment and treatment.
aimTo explore patients' experiences of the GPCPCS. DESIGN &
settingAn online survey in two regions of England.
methodTwenty-five general practices invited patients to take part in an exploratory survey. Descriptive statistics were used for the analysis.
resultsThe response rate was 5.1% (72/1423). Prior to contacting their general practice, 14.1% (9/64) of patients had tried to speak to a pharmacist. Most responders accepted the GPCPCS referral (77.3%, 51/66); received a pharmacy consultation on the same day (80.0%, 40/50); and were largely satisfied with the amount of time the pharmacist spent with them (82.5%, 33/40), the consultation format (68.3%, 28/41), and the privacy provided during the consultation (80.9%, 38/47). However, most responders (56.5%, 39/69) felt poorly informed by the general practice on why they were being advised to speak to a pharmacist and did not feel that it was appropriate that they had been advised to speak to a community pharmacist (54.2%, 39/72). Only 33.3% (16/48) felt that their consultation fully met their health needs and 27.1% (13/48) of patients described being re-referred from pharmacy back to their general practice.
conclusionIn this exploratory study patients were largely accepting of the GPCPCS. Improvements in terms of explaining GPCPCS to patients, selecting patients appropriate for referral to the service, and the appointment process may be of benefit.
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.