ArticlePharmacy (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Hospital Pharmacists' Perspectives on Documenting and Classifying Pharmaceutical Interventions: A Nationwide Validation Study in Portugal.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pharmacist interventions (PIs) are central to optimising pharmacotherapy, preventing drug-related problems, and improving patient outcomes. In Portugal, the absence of a validated tool to consistently document and classify PIs limits data comparability and service development. Given these gaps, this study aimed to describe hospital pharmacists' attitudes towards PI documentation and classification, following confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of a survey instrument, and to provide a comprehensive overview of current practices and behaviours in hospital settings across Portugal. An online questionnaire, previously validated, was distributed online to all hospital pharmacists registered with the Portuguese Pharmaceutical Society (October-December 2024). Sociodemographic data and the cognitive and behavioural domains of pharmacists' attitudinal model were analysed descriptively, and CFA tested the three-factor structure (Process, Outcome, Satisfaction) of the attitudinal affective domain. Of 1848 pharmacists, 260 responded (14%). Respondents reported performing a mean of 49 PIs/month (SD = 196), although many never recorded (28.8%), classified (56.2%), or analysed (52.3%) interventions. Only 2.7% declared to use a validated classification framework. The CFA supported the structural coherence of the Process factor but revealed some overlapping between Process and Outcome and instability in the Satisfaction factor. The nationwide scope and application of CFA provided partial support for the hypothesised model and highlighted areas for refinement, including revision of Satisfaction items and reconsideration of Process and Outcome as overlapping constructs. Findings highlight strong professional commitment to PIs but persistent barriers, including less clear procedures and satisfaction, underscoring the need for a unified, standardised national system to support consistent recording, classification, and evaluation.
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.