ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2026
Identifying and measuring important outcomes for evaluating the impact of pharmacist prescribing in Ireland: A modified Delphi 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. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pharmacist role expansion, including pharmacist prescribing, is increasing globally. Assessing the impact of such role expansion is vital to understand whether it achieves its intended goals. Purpose: To identify key outcomes to evaluate pharmacist prescribing within Ireland's planned Common Conditions Service (CCS) and independent pharmacist prescribing contexts, and determine their measurability using existing health data sources. Methods: In a three-round Delphi study, an expert panel (including patients) rated the importance of outcomes, pre-identified via a rapid overview of reviews, using Likert scales.Outcomes reaching consensus for inclusion (rated by ≥75% as critically important) or exclusion (<25%) after the second round were not re-rated. In the third round, remaining outcomes were re-rated and experts also rated the feasibility of measuring each outcome using existing health data sources. Results: Thirty experts completed all rounds. For CCS, seven outcomes reached consensus as critically important: "Patient experience and satisfaction", "Access to care", "Guideline concordance", "Symptom improvement, or clinical cure", "Re-consultation with other healthcare providers", "Cost of care to the healthcare system", and "Referral to other healthcare providers". For other independent prescribing contexts, ten outcomes were critically important, including "Mortality", "Clinical effectiveness", "Adverse events", and "Cost of care to patients". Important CCS outcomes varied in their measurability using existing data, with 'Prescribing rate' (76% agreement) and 'Cost to patients' (64%) and 'Cost to patients' (64%) were most feasible. Conclusions: This study identified priority outcomes for evaluating the impact of pharmacist prescribing and their measurability, encompassing clinical, safety, economic, and patient perspectives.
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.