ArticlePharmacy (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Article in Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The NHS-funded Common Ailments Service (CAS) in Wales enables community pharmacists to manage 28 common ailments by providing advice and/or medication free of charge without the need for patients to book an appointment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the patient experience of the CAS using patient reported experience measures (PREMs) and determine the feasibility of digital data capture collected directly from patients through a pharmacist-led manual recruitment model. The study used prospective, primary data collected through an online survey accessible via a Quick Response code and census recruitment. A total of 3660 surveys were included in the analysis, completed between 27 October 2025 and 31 March 2026. Overall experience was rated as excellent by 95.1% of participants. A theory-based framework analysis of 1499 free-text comments across the six domains of healthcare quality confirmed the high standard of care provision, primarily influenced by consultation quality, convenience, accessibility, and short waiting times. It also identified targeted areas for improvement, such as the need for seamless referrals from other areas of primary care and consistent availability of the service across all pharmacies. While digital PREMs captured high-quality insights, the pharmacist-led recruitment model reached a "feasibility ceiling", with an overall response rate of 3.2%.
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.