ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2025
Attitudes, barriers, and facilitators toward tools supporting appropriate prescribing among healthcare professionals: a cross-sectional study.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 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.
- Healthcare professionals' perspectives on medication adherence-supporting tools: a cross‑sectional survey in Italy.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Natural products and nutraceuticals in the management of chronic inflammatory diseases: efficacy, mechanisms, and comparative insights.Inflammopharmacology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePotentially inappropriate prescriptions are associated with an increased risk of drug-drug interactions, adverse events, and unfavorable clinical outcomes, especially in older adults. Although different tools to improve appropriate prescribing have been developed to support healthcare professionals, their application and the barriers to their use remain insufficiently explored. This study aimed to assess Italian healthcare professionals' knowledge of these tools and identify obstacles to their adoption.
methodsThe study used a purposefully designed questionnaire to assess knowledge, adoption, and barriers related to appropriateness tools. The tools included were identified through a literature review and subsequently refined via expert consensus. Open-ended responses were analyzed using a conventional content analysis approach, and the analyses focused on differences across professional groups.
resultsThe survey collected 657 responses from pharmacists (35%), nurses (26%), general practitioners (22%), geriatricians/internists (9%), and other physicians (8%). The Beers and STOPP/START criteria were used by 38% and 34% of participants, respectively, with geriatricians and other physicians being the primary users. Additionally, 34% of participants reported using specific software integrated into their institutional computer systems. Among 294 respondents identifying barriers to appropriate prescribing, the most common were lack of time (14%), lack of knowledge (10%), and accessibility/costs of digital tools (8%). Key facilitators included specific training (38%), integrated software/apps (29%), and more time with patients (11%).
conclusionsThe adoption of tools supporting appropriate prescribing remains limited among healthcare professionals in Italy, with significant differences among professionals. Policymakers and healthcare institutions should focus on education, interprofessional collaboration, and user-friendly digital solutions to improve prescribing process and patient safety.
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.