执业药师及其对英国全科执业处方的影响:一项横断面研究。

IF 1.5 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY International Journal of Pharmacy Practice Pub Date : 2024-02-15 DOI:10.1093/ijpp/riad075
Mary Carter, Sarah Chapman, Philip Rogers, Margaret Watson
{"title":"执业药师及其对英国全科执业处方的影响:一项横断面研究。","authors":"Mary Carter, Sarah Chapman, Philip Rogers, Margaret Watson","doi":"10.1093/ijpp/riad075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>At the time of the survey, just over 2000 pharmacists were employed in UK general practice. Little is known about their influence on prescribing, and more specifically, the extent of their use of Audit and Feedback (A&F), an evidence-based method for behaviour change. This study aimed to explore pharmacists' current influence on prescribing in UK general practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional, online survey was open to general practice pharmacists in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales between 9 September 2021 and 31 October 2021. The survey comprised 36 items, informed by the literature, including multiple choice and free-text questions about pharmacist responsibilities, involvement in prescribing audits (including use of A&F), use of prescribing guidelines, beliefs about influence on prescribing, and access to training and support. Descriptive statistics and frequencies were generated, and parametric analyses were conducted.</p><p><strong>Key findings: </strong>In total, 155 responses were received from pharmacists in diverse practice locations, with a wide range of practice pharmacist experience. The majority (80%, n = 121) conducted prescribing audits, but only 21% (n = 32) reported undertaking A&F. Most respondents (90%, n = 140) used guidelines to inform their work, and 75% (n = 116) would welcome training on influencing prescribing. Pharmacists using A&F were more likely to believe in their ability to influence prescribing and to acknowledge this activity as part of their role.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite substantial evidence of its effectiveness, A&F is under-used by practice pharmacists. An increased awareness and enablement of practice pharmacists in effective techniques might promote greater evidence-based prescribing in general practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":14284,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Practice pharmacists and their influence on prescribing in UK general practice: a cross-sectional study.\",\"authors\":\"Mary Carter, Sarah Chapman, Philip Rogers, Margaret Watson\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ijpp/riad075\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>At the time of the survey, just over 2000 pharmacists were employed in UK general practice. Little is known about their influence on prescribing, and more specifically, the extent of their use of Audit and Feedback (A&F), an evidence-based method for behaviour change. This study aimed to explore pharmacists' current influence on prescribing in UK general practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional, online survey was open to general practice pharmacists in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales between 9 September 2021 and 31 October 2021. The survey comprised 36 items, informed by the literature, including multiple choice and free-text questions about pharmacist responsibilities, involvement in prescribing audits (including use of A&F), use of prescribing guidelines, beliefs about influence on prescribing, and access to training and support. Descriptive statistics and frequencies were generated, and parametric analyses were conducted.</p><p><strong>Key findings: </strong>In total, 155 responses were received from pharmacists in diverse practice locations, with a wide range of practice pharmacist experience. The majority (80%, n = 121) conducted prescribing audits, but only 21% (n = 32) reported undertaking A&F. Most respondents (90%, n = 140) used guidelines to inform their work, and 75% (n = 116) would welcome training on influencing prescribing. Pharmacists using A&F were more likely to believe in their ability to influence prescribing and to acknowledge this activity as part of their role.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite substantial evidence of its effectiveness, A&F is under-used by practice pharmacists. An increased awareness and enablement of practice pharmacists in effective techniques might promote greater evidence-based prescribing in general practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14284,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpp/riad075\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Pharmacy Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpp/riad075","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在调查的时候,刚刚超过2000名药剂师在英国全科执业。他们对处方的影响知之甚少,更具体地说,他们对审计和反馈(A&F)的使用程度知之甚少,审计和反馈是一种基于证据的行为改变方法。本研究旨在探讨药剂师目前对英国全科医生处方的影响。方法:在2021年9月9日至2021年10月31日期间,对英格兰、北爱尔兰、苏格兰和威尔士的全科药剂师进行横断面在线调查。该调查包括36个项目,由文献提供信息,包括多项选择和自由文本问题,涉及药剂师职责、参与处方审计(包括使用A&F)、使用处方指南、对处方影响的信念以及获得培训和支持的情况。生成描述性统计和频率,并进行参数分析。主要发现:总共收到了155份来自不同执业地点的药剂师的回复,他们具有广泛的执业药剂师经验。大多数(80%,n = 121)进行了处方审计,但只有21% (n = 32)报告进行了A&F审计。大多数受访者(90%,n = 140)使用指南来指导他们的工作,75% (n = 116)的受访者欢迎关于影响处方的培训。使用A&F的药剂师更有可能相信他们影响处方的能力,并承认这种活动是他们角色的一部分。结论:尽管有大量证据表明其有效性,但A&F未被执业药师充分利用。提高实践药师对有效技术的认识和支持可能会促进全科实践中更多的循证处方。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Practice pharmacists and their influence on prescribing in UK general practice: a cross-sectional study.

Objectives: At the time of the survey, just over 2000 pharmacists were employed in UK general practice. Little is known about their influence on prescribing, and more specifically, the extent of their use of Audit and Feedback (A&F), an evidence-based method for behaviour change. This study aimed to explore pharmacists' current influence on prescribing in UK general practice.

Methods: A cross-sectional, online survey was open to general practice pharmacists in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales between 9 September 2021 and 31 October 2021. The survey comprised 36 items, informed by the literature, including multiple choice and free-text questions about pharmacist responsibilities, involvement in prescribing audits (including use of A&F), use of prescribing guidelines, beliefs about influence on prescribing, and access to training and support. Descriptive statistics and frequencies were generated, and parametric analyses were conducted.

Key findings: In total, 155 responses were received from pharmacists in diverse practice locations, with a wide range of practice pharmacist experience. The majority (80%, n = 121) conducted prescribing audits, but only 21% (n = 32) reported undertaking A&F. Most respondents (90%, n = 140) used guidelines to inform their work, and 75% (n = 116) would welcome training on influencing prescribing. Pharmacists using A&F were more likely to believe in their ability to influence prescribing and to acknowledge this activity as part of their role.

Conclusion: Despite substantial evidence of its effectiveness, A&F is under-used by practice pharmacists. An increased awareness and enablement of practice pharmacists in effective techniques might promote greater evidence-based prescribing in general practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Pharmacy Practice (IJPP) is a Medline-indexed, peer reviewed, international journal. It is one of the leading journals publishing health services research in the context of pharmacy, pharmaceutical care, medicines and medicines management. Regular sections in the journal include, editorials, literature reviews, original research, personal opinion and short communications. Topics covered include: medicines utilisation, medicine management, medicines distribution, supply and administration, pharmaceutical services, professional and patient/lay perspectives, public health (including, e.g. health promotion, needs assessment, health protection) evidence based practice, pharmacy education. Methods include both evaluative and exploratory work including, randomised controlled trials, surveys, epidemiological approaches, case studies, observational studies, and qualitative methods such as interviews and focus groups. Application of methods drawn from other disciplines e.g. psychology, health economics, morbidity are especially welcome as are developments of new methodologies.
期刊最新文献
Immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer patients from the perspective of pharmaceutical care: a scoping review. Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: a cross-sectional study of community pharmacists in the UK. Correction to: Lifeguard Pharmacy: the co-development of a new community pharmacy response service for people in danger from domestic abuse or suicidal ideation. Trends, prescribing patterns, and determinants of initial antiepileptic drug treatment in older epileptic patients. Pandemic preparedness of Egyptian community pharmacists and potential facilitators to the successful implementation of a community pharmacy coronavirus disease 2019 referral service: a cross-sectional survey.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1