ArticleCommunity mental health journal2026
Evaluating the Utility of a Statewide Pharmacist-Led Psychotropic Medicines Information Service: A Mixed-Methods Study.
Article in Community mental health journal, 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
Psychotropic medicines are essential in managing mental illness but are associated with complex challenges, including off-label use, polypharmacy, drug interactions, adverse effects, and diverse safety profiles. Effective decision-making requires access to reliable, evidence-based, and context-specific medicines information. Medicines Information (MI) services, particularly those led by pharmacists, provide tailored, evidence-informed advice that supports safe prescribing and optimises patient outcomes.This study aimed to evaluate the Psychotropic Drug Advisory Service (PDAS) at Alfred Health, a statewide pharmacist-led clinical advisory service. The evaluation sought to (a) determine the impact of advice on patient care, clinical outcomes, and medication safety; (b) assess the usefulness of advice and its uptake by enquirers; and (c) explore user experiences and satisfaction to inform future service development.A mixed-methods service evaluation was conducted. Quantitative data were collected through a retrospective audit of all enquiries recorded over a 12-month period (January-December 2024). Qualitative data were obtained through semi-structured interviews conducted between March and August 2025 with a total of 17 clinicians, consumers, and carers who had accessed PDAS during the evaluation period. Interviews explored perceptions of service utility, impact on clinical decision-making, and areas for improvement, and were thematically analysed.PDAS responded to 266 enquiries over the 12-month evaluation period, with enquiries originating from a broad range of clinicians, consumers, and carers across primary, secondary, and community care. Enquiries frequently involved complex psychotropic decision-making; most commonly relating to administration and dosage, choice of medication, adverse effects, drug-drug interactions, and antipsychotic or antidepressant use. Most enquiries were addressed promptly, with the majority receiving an initial response within one hour. Qualitative analysis identified four key themes: enhancing confidence in clinical decision-making, improving access to specialist psychotropic advice, facilitating collaborative problem solving, and delivering credible, evidence-based guidance; highlighting PDAS's role as a trusted, accessible, and specialist support service within complex mental health settings. These findings support the utility of a statewide, pharmacist-led psychotropic medicines information service as an important component of contemporary mental health systems, particularly in settings characterised by clinical complexity and/or limited access to specialist expertise.
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.