ArticleBMC medical education2026
A mixed-methods study on the effectiveness and optimization needs of a prescription review training program: from the KAP perspective of returning trainees.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrescription review training programs are widely implemented in China to meet increasingly stringent policy requirements for rational drug use. However, evidence on the effectiveness of these programs and the specific needs for their optimization, particularly from the knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) perspective of returning pharmacists, remains limited. This gap constrains efforts to refine training systems and support the implementation of national pharmaceutical policies.
methodsAn exploratory sequential mixed-methods design grounded in the KAP model was employed. Phase I involved semi-structured interviews with 15 returning trainees, with thematic analysis adopted for data coding and thematising; Phase II administered a KAP questionnaire to trainees, quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and binary logistic regression.
resultsQualitative interview revealed that trainees reported good knowledge acquisition and positive attitude transformation, but also faced practice barriers (limited pre‑review platform support, physician communication difficulties, and specialty misalignment). Quantitative survey of 394 trainees showed mean knowledge scores of 32.6±3.2, attitude scores of 28.7±2.4, and practice scores of 32.3±3.6, with significant positive correlations among them. Regression analysis identified low usefulness of role‑playing and insufficient communication training demand were independent associated factors for poor practice translation (P<0.05), while workplace contextual factors(e.g. pre‑review platform) were not significant. Both qualitative and quantitative findings consistently indicated strong trainee demand for extended training, specialty focused content, communication practice, and post-training support.
conclusionPrescription review training effectively improves pharmacists' knowledge and professional attitude. However, despite high knowledge and practice scores, qualitative findings revealed persistent self reported difficulties in applying training to practice, indicating a discrepancy between measured outcomes and perceived challenges. The two finding are complementary rather than contradictory. Addressing this discrepancy requires integrated interventions, including strengthened communication skills training, specialty-adapted content, improved institutional support platforms, and sustainable post-training follow-up.
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.