Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39832959›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Do you think medicines can be prescribed in a more eco-directed, greener way? A qualitative study based on public and prescriber focus groups on the impact of pharmaceuticals in Scotland's water environment.

Lydia Niemi, Claire Anderson, Naoko Arakawa, Mark Taggart, Stuart Gibb, Sharon Pfleger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Lydia NiemiEnvironmental Research Institute, University of the Highlands and Islands, Thurso, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9513-0622
Claire AndersonSchool of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK claire.anderson@nottingham.ac.uk.
Naoko ArakawaSchool of Pharmacy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2640-3735
Mark TaggartEnvironmental Research Institute, University of the Highlands and Islands, Thurso, UK.
Stuart GibbEnvironmental Research Institute, University of the Highlands and Islands, Thurso, UK.
Sharon PflegerNHS Highland, Inverness, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis qualitative study explored public and prescriber awareness of pharmaceutical pollution in the water environment and eco-directed sustainable prescribing (EDSP) as a mitigation strategy to reduce the environmental impact of prescribing in Scotland.

designFocus groups explored prescriber and public perceptions of the topic. Common questions were asked through semistructured facilitation. Focus groups were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim using an artificial intelligence system, then anonymised and thematically analysed using NVivo software. Data were iteratively analysed using the one sheet of paper technique.

settingPublic focus groups were held in-person (Inverness, Scotland, April 2023), and prescriber focus groups were held virtually (MS Teams, August 2023).

participantsNine public representatives and 17 NHS Scotland prescribers participated in one of four focus groups. Purposive and opportunistic sampling approaches were used to recruit participants through social media and other channels (ie, community groups, professional emails, general practitioner and hospital flyers). Prescriber representatives registered interest through an online survey to gather information about their professional background. Responses were reviewed to ensure representation of a mixture of medical backgrounds, experience, sectors and health boards.

resultsThere is growing awareness among the public and healthcare professionals of pharmaceutical pollution in the environment, but further education is required on the drivers, potential effects and possible interventions. Suggestions for more sustainable healthcare included public health awareness campaigns, better provision for pharmacy take-back schemes, clear medicine/packaging labelling, regular medicines reviews and more considered patient-centred care. From the prescriber perspective, EDSP resonated well with current sustainability initiatives (eg, Realistic Medicine, switching to dry-powder inhalers), but barriers to EDSP included lack of knowledge, confidence, time and resources to implement changes. Although the public representatives were generally open to the concept of EDSP, this decision required weighing pros/cons considering personal health choices, information accessibility and transparency, and trust in and time with prescribers.

conclusionsThis study identified new insights from prescribers and the public related to the concept of, and barriers to, EDSP in Scotland, as well as perspectives regarding knowledge support tools and information communication. Cross-sector and transdisciplinary collaborative approaches are needed to address the challenges identified here. Nonetheless, EDSP merits further exploration in developing more sustainable, appropriate and effective healthcare which contributes to improved public and planetary health.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeWater PollutionFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleQualitative ResearchScotlandAwarenessBehaviorDecision MakingDrug UtilizationMedicineQUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Identifiers

PMID39832959
PMCPMC11749214

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.