Dataset Information

Facilitators and barriers to non-medical prescribing - A systematic review and thematic synthesis.

ABSTRACT: Non-medical prescribing has the potential to deliver innovative healthcare within limited finances. However, uptake has been slow, and a proportion of non-medical prescribers do not use the qualification. This systematic review aimed to describe the facilitators and barriers to non-medical prescribing in the United Kingdom.The systematic review and thematic analysis included qualitative and mixed methods papers reporting facilitators and barriers to independent non-medical prescribing in the United Kingdom. The following databases were searched to identify relevant papers: AMED, ASSIA, BNI, CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, MEDLINE, Open Grey, Open access theses and dissertations, and Web of Science. Papers published between 2006 and March 2017 were included. Studies were quality assessed using a validated tool (QATSDD), then underwent thematic analysis. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015019786).Of 3991 potentially relevant identified studies, 42 were eligible for inclusion. The studies were generally of moderate quality (83%), and most (71%) were published 2007-2012. The nursing profession dominated the studies (30/42). Thematic analysis identified three overarching themes: non-medical prescriber, human factors, and organisational aspects. Each theme consisted of several sub-themes; the four most highly mentioned were 'medical professionals', 'area of competence', 'impact on time' and 'service'. Sub-themes were frequently interdependent on each other, having the potential to act as a barrier or facilitator depending on circumstances.Addressing the identified themes and subthemes enables strategies to be developed to support and optimise non-medical prescribing. Further research is required to identify if similar themes are encountered by other non-medical prescribing groups than nurses and pharmacists.

SUBMITTER: Graham-Clarke E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5927440 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Facilitators and barriers to non-medical prescribing - A systematic review and thematic synthesis.

Graham-Clarke Emma E Rushton Alison A Noblet Timothy T Marriott John J

PloS one 20180430 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Non-medical prescribing has the potential to deliver innovative healthcare within limited finances. However, uptake has been slow, and a proportion of non-medical prescribers do not use the qualification. This systematic review aimed to describe the facilitators and barriers to non-medical prescribing in the United Kingdom.<h4>Methods</h4>The systematic review and thematic analysis included qualitative and mixed methods papers reporting facilitators and barriers to independe ...[more]

PMID: 29709006

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo support workforce deficits and rising demand for medicines, independent prescribing (IP) by nurses, pharmacists and allied health professionals is a key component of workforce transformation in UK healthcare. This systematic review of qualitative research studies used a thematic synthesis approach to explore stakeholders' views on IP in primary care and identify barriers and facilitators influencing implementation.SettingUK primary/community care.ParticipantsInclusion criteria were UK qualitative studies of any design, published in the English language. Six electronic databases were searched between January 2010 and September 2021, supplemented by reference list searching. Papers were screened, selected and quality-appraised using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs. Study data were extracted to a bespoke table and two reviewers used NVivo software to code study findings. An inductive thematic synthesis was undertaken to identify descriptive themes and interpret these into higher order analytical themes. The Diffusion of Innovations and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research were guiding theoretical anchors.Primary and secondary outcome measuresN/A.ResultsTwenty-three articles addressing nurse, pharmacist and physiotherapist IP were included. Synthesis identified barriers and facilitators in four key stages of implementation: (1) 'Preparation', (2) 'Training', (3) 'Transition' and 4) 'Sustainment'. Enhancement, substitution and role-specific implementation models reflected three main ways that the IP role was used in primary care.ConclusionsIn order to address global deficits, there is increasing need to optimise use of IP capability. Although the number of independent prescribers continues to grow, numerous barriers to implementation persist. A more coordinated and targeted approach is key to overcoming barriers identified in the four stages of implementation and would help ensure that IP is recognised as an effective approach to help alleviate workforce shortfalls in the UK, and around the world.Prospero registration numberCRD42019124400.

Project description:BackgroundNon-medical prescribing (NMP) was introduced into the United Kingdom to enhance patient care and improve access to medicines. Early research indicated that not all non-medical prescribers utilised their qualification. A systematic review described 15 factors influencing NMP implementation. Findings from a recent linked Delphi study with independent physiotherapist and pharmacist prescribers achieved consensus for 1 barrier and 28 facilitators. However, item ranking differed for pharmacist and physiotherapist groups, suggesting facilitators and barriers to NMP differ depending on profession. The aim of this study was to further explore the lived experiences of NMP by pharmacists and physiotherapists.MethodStudy design and analytical approach were guided by Interpretative Phenomenology Analysis principles. Focus groups (November and December 2020) used the 'Zoom®' virtual platform with pharmacist and physiotherapist prescribers. Each focus group followed a topic guide, developed a priori based on the Delphi study results, and was audio recorded digitally. Transcripts underwent thematic analysis and data were visualised using a concept map and sunburst graph, and a table of illustrative quotes produced. Research trustworthiness was enhanced through critical discussion of the topic guide and study findings by the research group and by author reflexivity. The study is reported in line with COREQ guidelines.ResultsParticipants comprised three physiotherapists and seven pharmacists. Five themes were identified. The most frequently mentioned theme was 'Staff', and the subtheme 'Clinical team', describing the working relationship between participants and team members. The other themes were 'Self', 'Governance', 'Practical aspects' and 'Patient care'. Important inter-dependencies were described between themes and subthemes, for example between 'Governance' and 'Quality and Safety'. Differences were highlighted between the professions, some relating to the way each profession practises (for example decision making), others to the way the prescribing role had been established (for example administration support).ConclusionsThe key finding of collaborative working with the clinical team emphasises its impact on successful implementation of NMP. Themes may be inter-dependent, and inter-profession differences were identified. Specifically designed prescribing roles were beneficial for participants. For full NMP benefits to be realised all aspects of such roles must be fully scoped, before recruiting or training non-medical prescribers.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Physical activity is widely recommended in the treatment and management of cystic fibrosis (CF). Despite the numerous physical and psychological benefits, many young people with CF are not achieving the recommended levels of physical activity. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and synthesise available qualitative investigations exploring the motives for, barriers to and facilitators of physical activity among young people with CF. METHODS:The following six electronic databases were systematically searched: Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA), CINAH, EMBASE, MEDLINE, MEDLINE-in-process, PsycINFO up to August 2019. Keywords were used to identify qualitative research that explored engagement in physical activity among young people with CF. Titles and abstracts were screened by two independent reviewers, and potentially relevant articles were retrieved in full. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they employed any qualitative method and recruited participants under the age of 24 years with CF. Risk of bias of included studies was assessed via the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Results were synthesised using a thematic approach. RESULTS:Seven studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Overall, studies were of moderate to high quality. Thematic synthesis identified nine main themes that encompass motives for, barriers to and facilitators of physical activity among young people with CF. These were (1) Perceptions of physical activity. (2) Value attributed to physical activity. (3) Social influences. (4) Competing priorities. (5) Fluctuating health. (6) Normality. (7) Control beliefs. (8) Coping strategies. (9) Availability of facilities. Previous reviews have been unable to identify intervention characteristics that influence physical activity behaviour. CONCLUSIONS:This review provides detailed information on the physical (biological-clinical), psychological, social and environmental influences on physical activity behaviour, thus providing numerous targets for future interventions. This in turn could facilitate promotion of physical activity among young people with CF.

Project description:BackgroundOpiate agonist therapy (OAT) prescribing rates by family physicians are low in the context of community-based, comprehensive primary care. Understanding the factors that support and/or inhibit OAT prescribing within primary care is needed. Our study objectives are to identify and synthesize documented barriers to, and facilitators of, primary care opioid agonist prescribing, and effective strategies to inform intervention planning and support increased primary care OAT prescribing.Methods/designWe will systematically search EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and gray literature in three domains: primary care providers, opioid agonist therapy, and opioid abuse. We will retain and assess primary studies reporting documented participation, or self-reported willingness to participate, in OAT prescribing; and/or at least one determinant of OAT prescribing; and/or strategies to address determinants of OAT prescribing from the perspective of primary care providers in comprehensive, community-based practice settings. There will be no restrictions on study design or publication date. Studies limited to specialty clinics with specialist prescribers, lacking extractable data, or in languages other than English or French will be excluded. Two reviewers will perform abstract review and data extraction independently. We will assess the quality of included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool. We will use a framework method of analysis to deductively code barriers and facilitators and to characterize effective strategies to support prescribing using a combined, modified a priori framework comprising the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.DiscussionTo date, no synthesis has been undertaken of the barriers and facilitators or effective interventions promoting OAT prescribing by primary care clinicians in community-based comprehensive care settings. Enacting change in physician behaviors, community-based programming, and health services is complex and best informed by using theoretical frameworks that allow the analysis of the available data to assist in designing and implementing interventions. In light of the current opioid crisis, increasing the capacity of primary care clinicians to provide OAT is an important strategy to curb morbidity and mortality from opioid use disorder.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD86835.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral studies suggest that medical student empathy declines throughout medical school. However, no studies have synthesised the evidence regarding why empathy declines.ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies investigating why student empathy may change throughout medical school.MethodsWe included any qualitative study that investigated why empathy might change during medical school. We searched the Medline, Scopus, CINAHL, ERIC, and APA PsycInfo databases for relevant studies. All databases were searched from their inception to 18 July 2022. We also searched the reference lists of the included studies and contacted experts to identify additional studies. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute tool to evaluate the risk of bias in the included studies. Overall confidence in our results was assessed using the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) approach. We used thematic methods to synthesise our findings.ResultsOur searches yielded 2523 records, and 16 studies involving a total of 771 students were eligible for analysis. Most studies (n = 11) were from Europe or North America. The descriptive themes and sub-themes were identified for each study. Increased complexity in patients and their diseases, together with the 'hidden curriculum' (including a stressful workload, prioritisation of biomedical knowledge, and (sometimes) poor role models), led to student adaptations, such as cynicism and desensitisation. Students' prior lives and professional experiences appeared to exacerbate the decline in empathy. However, there were bias concerns for most of the included studies.DiscussionMany of the included studies included were small, and some did not include demographic participant data. Given the likely benefits of providing empathic care for patients and practitioners, medical education interventions should focus on developing an 'empathic hidden curriculum' that mitigates the decline in medical student empathy.Trial registrationA protocol for this systematic review was submitted for registration with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 28 July 2022 (registration number CRD42022347856).

Dataset Information

Facilitators and barriers to non-medical prescribing - A systematic review and thematic synthesis.

Publications

Facilitators and barriers to non-medical prescribing - A systematic review and thematic synthesis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets