ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2026
Patients' perspectives and experiences regarding medication reviews: A cross-sectional survey study.
Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Medication reviews are conducted worldwide to reduce medication-related problems. However, real-world patient perspectives and experiences remain underexplored. This study aimed to explore patients' perspectives and experiences regarding medication reviews and to assess differences across levels of polypharmacy. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among a panel of Dutch pharmacy visitors. Topics included perspectives and experiences regarding medication reviews. Descriptive statistics were used, and Chi-square tests were used to assess differences between levels of polypharmacy (non-polypharmacy: 1-4 medications; polypharmacy: 5-9 medications; hyperpolypharmacy: ≥10 medications). Results: Among 4395 respondents (median age: 71; 43 % female), 48 % were aware of the existence of medication reviews, and 85 % deemed these important. Patients valued discussing the appropriateness, efficacy, side-effects, and risks of medication more than practical medication-related issues. These perspectives were consistent across polypharmacy levels. Overall, 1176 patients (27 %) had experienced a review (non-polypharmacy: 22 %; polypharmacy: 29 %; hyperpolypharmacy: 39 %). Of these, 92 % felt able to ask questions, and 62 % felt treatment options were sufficiently discussed. Patients reported that their review resulted in better medication understanding (68 %), increased confidence in medication usage (65 %), and fewer health issues (40 %). Patients with non-polypharmacy reported improvements in follow-up agreements (9 %) and involvement of secondary healthcare providers (11 %) less frequently than those with polypharmacy (14 %/15 %) and hyperpolypharmacy (19 %/26 %). Conclusion: Most patients valued medication reviews, yet only half were aware of their existence. Generally, levels of polypharmacy hardly impacted patient perspectives. Based on patients' experiences, shared decision-making, follow-ups, and multidisciplinary approaches could be better implemented in medication reviews.
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.