ArticlePharmacy (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Pharmacy Staff Experiences and Needs During Second Dispense of Driving-Impairing Medicines: A Qualitative Study.
Article in Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland), 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Driving-impairing medicines (DIMs) are associated with an increased risk of traffic accidents. While Dutch pharmacy staff are expected to counsel patients at the first and second dispense of DIMs, current practice suggests that second-dispense consultations are underutilized. This study explored pharmacy staff's experiences and perceived barriers in addressing driving impairment during the second dispense. Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were performed with 17 staff members in community pharmacies across the Netherlands. Transcripts were coded using thematic analysis in Atlas.ti, applying both deductive and inductive coding strategies to explore current practices and improvement needs. Participants reported that they provided detailed information on medication use, side effects, and driving impairment during the first dispense. In contrast, driving fitness was only discussed during the second dispense when patients initiated the topic, which rarely happened. Barriers to discuss DIMs included time constraints, a lack of protocols or prompts in pharmacy software, limited privacy, and patients' reluctance to communicate about this topic. Many pharmacy technicians relied on closed questioning and observed a lack of patient initiative. Facilitators included strong patient relationships, access to medical records, and a desire for training in consultation skills. Pharmacy staff expressed the need for improved protocols, better ICT (Information and Communication Technology) integration, and targeted communication tools to support safe use of DIMs. In conclusion, second-dispense consultations for DIMs are underused and can support patients in safer medication use. Improved implementation will lead to better-informed choices about medicines and driving, and strengthen the pharmacy's contribution to traffic 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.