ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2025
Perspective of older people on which medicines they need to report to healthcare professionals as part of a medicines history: a qualitative descriptive study.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundThe medicines that older people consider relevant as part of their medicine regime may be reflected in their reporting of medicines to healthcare professionals during a medicine history.
aimThis study aimed to understand the perspectives of people, aged 65 or older, on which medicine(s) they reported as part of their medicine regimen.
methodA qualitative descriptive study was conducted in Australia using semi-structured interviews to investigate the perspectives of which medicines were reported in a medicines history by people aged 65 years or older, taking at least one medicine. Participants were recruited until data saturation was reached. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed using the Framework Method.
resultsSix main themes emerged from sixteen participants: reporting medicines that solved a medical condition, medicines recommended by healthcare professionals, regular medicines, route of administration, combination products, and multiple tablets, doses, or part doses. Participants' beliefs and experiences impacted whether they included a medicine in their regimen. Participants inconsistently reported infrequent medicines, varying formulations, and multiple doses. Non-oral and over-the-counter medicines were commonly included if a healthcare professional recommended them. In contrast, supplements were seldom included.
conclusionThis study highlights the variation between participants' perspectives in reporting medicines, suggesting that older people's self-reporting of medicines is generally inconsistent. Our findings encourage clinicians to specifically enquire about medicines for acute health conditions, medicines commonly not prescribed by healthcare professionals, irregular medicines, and non-oral medicines to improve reporting by older people, to obtain the Best Possible Medication History.
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.