ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Clinical pharmacist prescriber in primary care in Slovenia: prospective non-randomised interventional study focused on clinical outcomes and quality of life.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical pharmacist-led interventions and their impact on outcomes in patients with bipolar I disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Developing a core competency framework for psychiatric pharmacists: a Europe-wide e-Delphi consensus study conducted by the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy Mental Health Special Interest Group.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Risk-managed antidepressant prescribing in primary care mental health: what pharmacogenetics can (and cannot) deliver.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Pharmacist prescriber implementation in the experiences of general practitioners, pharmacist prescribers and patients: qualitative study based on pilot trial in Slovenia.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Clinical pharmacist prescribers in primary care settings and their impact on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and clinical outcomes have not been described outside English-speaking countries. Aim: The aim of this prospective interventional pilot study was to assess the impact of pharmacist prescribers on clinical results and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), while describing their development, evaluation, and implementation in Slovenia. Methods: This prospective, 6-month, interventional, non-randomised study started in November 2024 and concluded in June 2025 in four primary care settings in Slovenia. Clinical pharmacists reviewed medications of patients and additionally prescribed medications based on the Collaborative Practice Agreement (CPA). In this process, they cooperated with patients and general practitioners (GPs). Only patients with an established diagnosis for selected non-communicable chronic conditions were included. The primary outcomes were changes in PROs, including quality of life (assessed via EQ-5D-VAS), and the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI). Secondary outcomes included the prescription acceptance rate by GPs (percentage) and adherence to treatment guidelines. Tertiary outcomes involved the number of prescriptions that met the predefined clinical outcomes. Results: The study included 119 patients, with a mean age of 72.3 years (SD = 10.0). Quality of life improved from 63.6/100 (SD = 18.7) at baseline to 71.4/100 (SD = 15.9) at the end of the study (p = 0.000), with a corresponding QALY difference of 0.0252. The effect size (Cohen's d) was 0.448 (95% CI: 0.084 to 0.812. The number needed to treat (NNT) was 4.0. During the study, clinical pharmacists prescribed 264 prescriptions to 119 patients, resulting in an acceptance rate of 91.3%. Adherence to treatment guidelines improved significantly (29.8% vs. 90.9%; p = 0.000). The effect size, expressed as an odds ratio (OR), was 25.7 (95% CI: 15.6-42.4). The number of prescriptions achieving the predefined clinical outcomes was significantly higher at the end of the study (70.8% vs. 6.4%; p = 0.000), with an OR of 33.9 (95% CI: 19.1-60.4). Deprescribing accounted for 25.3% of all protocols. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that prescriptions made by clinical pharmacists in collaboration with GPs, as specified in the CPA, improved PROs and clinical outcomes for predefined conditions.
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.