ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
Community Pharmacy Service for Patients With Inhaled Medications: A Multi-Perspective Observation and Assessment Under Routine Conditions.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Community Pharmacy Service for Patients With Inhaled Medications: A Multi-Perspective Observation and Assessment Under Routine Conditions.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
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
rationaleOutcome studies have shown the benefits of inhalation consultations. Therefore, the service of inhalation consultations from pharmacists has been implemented in guidelines. Recently, this service became reimbursable for German community pharmacies.
aimsWe aimed to investigate how this service is performed under routine conditions to actually achieve the proven benefits.
methodsWe evaluated the reimbursed inhalation service under routine conditions in community pharmacies in Saxony, Germany. An external trained monitor observed routine services and documented predefined handling errors in patients' inhalation demonstrations. Besides, the monitor checked which contents of predefined checklists were addressed. After the consultations, patients and pharmaceutical staff were asked about the pervious service via a questionnaire.
resultsWe analysed 48 reimbursed inhalation services in 13 different community pharmacies. Most consultations were on metered dose inhalers and dry powder inhalers, with 42% (20/48) each. We observed a median of n = 2 handling errors per patient (Q25: 1; Q75: 3). On average, 77% of those two errors were addressed by the pharmaceutical staff during the following consultation (95% confidence interval [69%; 86%]; minimum: 0%; maximum: 100%). Overall, patients' contentment with the service was very high (overall median: 5), while pharmaceutical staff's contentment was high (overall median: 4). There was no correlation between duration and unaddressed errors (r = 0.16; p = 0.35) or patients' contentment (r = 0.19; p = 0.26).
conclusionHandling errors in patients' inhalation technique were common but mostly recognized and addressed by the pharmaceutical staff during the reimbursed inhalation service. Patients' contentment with the service was high to very high, and they were usually more content with the service than the pharmaceutical staff.
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.