ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2026
A qualitative exploration of healthcare professionals' perspectives on the role of pharmacists in screening older adults for depression during medication reviews.
Article in International journal of clinical 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLate-life depression (LLD) (depression occurring in individuals aged ≥ 65 years) often goes underdiagnosed and undertreated. Pharmacists who conduct medication reviews may play a significant role in LLD screening.
aimThis study aimed to explore healthcare professionals' (HCPs) perspectives regarding the role of pharmacists in LLD screening for older adults during medication reviews.
methodA semi-structured interview guide was developed, guided by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). HCPs across Australia were recruited via purposive sampling through professional organisations' social media and e-newsletters distributed by primary health networks, and via convenience sampling through departmental meetings and emails at Royal North Shore Hospital, New South Wales, Australia. The interviews explored HCPs' acceptability and perspectives regarding the role of pharmacists in LLD screening. Key themes and subthemes were identified using inductive thematic analysis. Each subtheme was then deductively mapped to the TFA constructs.
resultsTwenty-eight HCPs participated in the interviews, including 10 credentialed pharmacists (35.7%), nine hospital pharmacists (32.1%), five geriatricians (17.9%) and four general practitioners (14.3%). Most participants were female (n = 22; 78.6%) and practising in New South Wales, Australia (n = 17; 60.7%). The duration of interviews ranged from 21 to 55 min (M = 33 min, SD = 9 min). Five key themes were identified, including Considerations for service delivery, Patients' homes as screening setting, Resource requirements, Timely follow-up, and Benefits of screening. These themes were further divided into eight subthemes. HCPs generally viewed pharmacist-delivered LLD screening as acceptable, provided certain factors were addressed prior to implementation. Facilitators such as increased patient comfort in their homes and the importance of mental health training were noted; however, barriers such as time constraints, lack of remuneration for additional services and the difficulties of timely follow-up may impede the provision of such services.
conclusionHCPs were generally accepting of pharmacist-delivered LLD screening during medication reviews, and perceived pharmacists to have a role in such services. Recommendations for future implementation include targeted mental health training for credentialed pharmacists, appropriate remuneration, and timely follow-up pathways for at-risk patients.
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.