ArticlePloS one2026
Evaluating acceptability of the Inpatient Mental Health Pharmaceutical Assessment and Care Tool (IMPACT): A multi-site study in the United Kingdom.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
backgroundThe Inpatient Mental Health Pharmaceutical Assessment and Care Tool (IMPACT) was developed to assist pharmacy teams in identifying high risk patients for early intervention. Evaluation of the IMPACT tool is important to ensure its feasibility and effectiveness. This study reports the first evaluation of the IMPACT tool aiming to explore its acceptability by mental health inpatient pharmacy teams using an iterative qualitative approach.
methodsBetween October 2024 and February 2025, pharmacy staff from five National Health Service (NHS) organisations retrospectively applied the IMPACT tool on patients that they had provided pharmaceutical care to, completed a reflection sheet, and attended an online focus group. Training was delivered to participants before initiating the study and the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability guided the content and analysis of the focus groups.
resultsFour focus groups and one dual interview were conducted with 12 pharmacists and 5 pharmacy technicians. The tool was viewed as self-explanatory and effective. Most participants were confident using the tool, though some pharmacy technicians reported difficulties due to clinical criteria (e.g., blood tests interpretation) that was not part of their usual duties. Following the first focus group, some changes were made such as clarifying or combining some risk-indicators. These changes were well-received by subsequent participants and recommendations and insights gained from all participants assisted in improving the tool.
conclusionThis study revealed that the IMPACT tool was acceptable by pharmacy team members and resulted in a refined version. Future work should further explore the tool's feasibility and impact using mixed methods approaches.
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.