ArticleHRB open research2026
Perspectives of primary care healthcare professionals on interventions aimed at reducing the environmental impact of medicines: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol.
Article in HRB open research, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Medicines can affect the environment throughout their lifecycle; from manufacturing to use and disposal. Medicines can enter the environment through various sources, some controllable and others not. Excretion is the primary source of pharmaceutical pollution; however, secondary sources also include improper disposal and effluent discharge. This pharmaceutical pollution can harm both human and animal health. As most prescribing occurs in primary care, it is a key setting for interventions aimed at reducing the environmental impact of medicines. The perceptions of healthcare professionals regarding these efforts remain unclear. Aim: This systematic review aims to explore the perspectives of healthcare professionals working in primary care regarding interventions designed to reduce the environmental impact of medicines. Methods: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL will be undertaken. Studies using qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods designs will be included if they explore the perspectives of primary care healthcare professionals on interventions to reduce the environmental impact of medicines. Title and abstract screening, followed by full-text review, will be performed independently and in duplicate. Study quality will be appraised independently by two reviewers using the appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool. A data extraction tool will be developed, piloted, and applied to collect relevant information, with extraction conducted independently and in duplicate. Quantitative data will be qualitised and integrated with qualitative evidence as part of a convergent integrated synthesis, with findings presented in the form of a narrative synthesis. Conclusion: This review will help inform the design and implementation of future environmental interventions in primary care. By understanding healthcare professionals' perspectives on existing or proposed interventions, future strategies can be tailored to improve their acceptability and feasibility. Protocol registration: This protocol has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251247490). Any amendments to this protocol will be documented and uploaded as revision notes on all platforms where the protocol is published.
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.