ArticleFarmaceuticos comunitarios2025
[Pharmaceutical interventions in the new medicine service].
Article in Farmaceuticos comunitarios, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Community pharmacy has been promoted internationally for the management of minor ailments with positive results for patients and health care systems. This study evaluates the clinical impact and implementation of a minor ailment service in community pharmacies' daily practice. Methods: A pragmatic study with a hybrid effectiveness-implementation design was conducted throughout Spain between 2020-2023. Patients who visited community pharmacies to consult or request a medicine for a minor ailment were included. The intervention consisted of a protocol for the minor ailment service and specific protocols for each ailment agreed with general medical practitioners through the SEFAC eXPERT® IT platform and after community pharmacists' training. Patients were followed up 10 days after the consultation. Results: A total of 430 pharmacies registered 20,987 consultations. 85.2% (n=17,885) were consultations about minor ailments and 14.8% (n=3,102) were requests for specific medications. Minor ailments related to pain (18.7%, n=3,935) were the most frequently consulted. Pharmacists recommended pharmacological treatment to 81.3% (n=17,063) patients and referred 8.0% (n=1,682) patients to a general medical practitioner. 72.4% (n=15,192) of patients responded to follow-up with a symptom resolution of 9.0/10.0, a change in quality of life of +9.0 (0-100 scale) and a satisfaction with the service of 9.6/10. Conclusions: SIF proved to be both operational and effective, yielding beneficial health outcomes. Its implementation enabled the evaluation of a substantial number of consultations and highlighted the need to encourage the routine documentation of services in community pharmacy practice.
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.