ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2025
Attitudes and expectations toward medication review among community pharmacy customers in Germany: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 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.
- Patients' perspectives and experiences regarding medication reviews: A cross-sectional survey study.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Article
- General practitioner-pharmacist collaboration to enhance deprescribing of psychotropics, sedatives, and anticholinergics among older polypharmacy patients in primary care: study protocol of a cluster-randomized controlled trial (PARTNER).Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Since knowledge about customers' attitudes towards medication reviews in community pharmacies is limited, the objective of this study was to gain insight into customers' perceived facilitators and barriers to participate in this service, with the aim of identifying areas to facilitate the implementation process. Methods: In spring 2024, we conducted a prospective, questionnaire-based survey for a total of 58 days. All customers (≥18 years) in 3 pharmacies in Germany, regardless of whether they were eligible for medication reviews or not, were approached during their pharmacy visit in person and invited to complete the tablet-based questionnaire on-site. The pilot-tested, multilingual questionnaire covered socio-demographic-data and customers' attitudes towards medication reviews. Potential benefits of medication reviews were rated regarding their perceived importance on a 3-point-Likert-scale (0 = not important, 1 = important, 2 = very important). A mean score was calculated for each benefit. Data were analyzed descriptively and binary logistic regression analyses were applied to explore associations of selected predictors with awareness of medication reviews or expected benefits. Results: A total of 1561 pharmacy customers participated, with 59.2% (interquartile range (IQR): 17.9%) of patients being approached daily. Awareness of medication reviews was low (18.0%, Conclusion: Gaining knowledge and improving medication safety through a medication review is most valuable to customers. By clearly explaining the purpose and expected benefits of medication reviews, the outreach and impact could be increased.
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.