ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2025
Evaluation of pharmacists' opioid dispensing practices: a cross-sectional study from Pakistan.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 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
Backgrounds: Worldwide, the opioid crisis is escalating, and pharmacists are well-positioned to address opioid abuse. The objective of the study was to assess pharmacists' knowledge, dispensing behaviours, concerns about physicians prescribing, provision of interventions to patients, and obstacles associated with opioid stewardship interventions. Methods: We employed a cross-sectional study design utilising a convenience sampling strategy to collect data from pharmacists employed in community and hospital pharmacies. A self-administered questionnaire of 58 items was utilised to gather data about pharmacists' knowledge of opioids, dispensing procedures, and issues related to physicians' prescribing behaviour from five cities of Punjab, Pakistan. Descriptive statistics were used for nominal and continuous variables. The Spearman Rho correlation was used to evaluate the correlation between knowledge, practice, and concern scores, while ANOVA was implemented to analyse the association between scores and demographics. Results: A total of 496 pharmacists responded, with a response rate of 72%. About 25% pharmacists were aware of using naloxone in opioid poisoning, 88.9% were aware of the potential risks and adverse effects of opioid therapy, and 87.5% explained these risks to patients. Almost half (48.4%) were concerned about physicians prescribing opioids to patients who were suspected of opioid misuse, and 64.5% were concerned that physicians prescribed opioids to patients who did not need them. The highest intervention provided by pharmacists was educating patients on safe and efficacious use of opioids (90.3% provided), and the least was recommendation of Naloxone in case of overdose (29% never provided). Almost 3/5th (58.0%) said lack of access to education or training resources was a high-impact barrier in opioid stewardship intervention provision. Conclusion: Pharmacists are concerned about physicians prescribing and mostly provide opioid-related training and interventions, but they also mentioned barriers to the provision of interventions. System-wide strategies are needed to improve opioid prescribing and physician-pharmacist communication.
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.