IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v88y2008i2-3p258-268.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determinants of the uptake of medicines use reviews (MURs) by community pharmacies in England: A multi-method study

Author

Listed:
  • Bradley, Fay
  • Wagner, Andrew C.
  • Elvey, Rebecca
  • Noyce, Peter R.
  • Ashcroft, Darren M.

Abstract

Objectives To explore and identify the key determinants influencing the uptake of medicines use reviews (MURs), a new community pharmacy service in England.Methods Survey of all primary care organisations (PCOs) in England (n = 303, response rate = 74%) and case study investigations of 10 PCOs, involving interviews with a purposive sample of 43 key stakeholders, including PCO, Local Pharmaceutical Committee and community pharmacy representatives. National data on MUR activity were also analysed and multiple linear regression was used to test determinants of MUR uptake.Results The ownership category of the pharmacy was shown to be the most significant determinant of MUR uptake. Rates of MUR provision by multiple pharmacies were almost twice that of independent pharmacies. Interview data corroborated this finding, suggesting that organisational pressure within multiple pharmacies was driving forward MUR activity in some PCOs. Interviewees expressed concern about this quantity driven approach. The PCO survey respondents perceived the greatest barrier to MUR implementation to be a lack of support from general practitioners (GPs). Interviewees reported a lack of communication about MURs between community pharmacists and GPs.Conclusions The findings suggest that the organisational setting of the pharmacy is an important factor influencing the uptake of MURs. There is also a need for greater communication and collaboration with GPs regarding the MUR service.

Suggested Citation

  • Bradley, Fay & Wagner, Andrew C. & Elvey, Rebecca & Noyce, Peter R. & Ashcroft, Darren M., 2008. "Determinants of the uptake of medicines use reviews (MURs) by community pharmacies in England: A multi-method study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(2-3), pages 258-268, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:88:y:2008:i:2-3:p:258-268
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168-8510(08)00087-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edmunds, June & Calnan, Michael W., 2001. "The reprofessionalisation of community pharmacy? An exploration of attitudes to extended roles for community pharmacists amongst pharmacists and General Practioners in the United Kingdom," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 53(7), pages 943-955, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. McDonald, Ruth & Cheraghi-Sohi, Sudeh & Sanders, Caroline & Ashcroft, Darren, 2010. "Professional status in a changing world: The case of medicines use reviews in English community pharmacy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 451-458, August.
    2. Schafheutle, Ellen Ingrid & Seston, Elizabeth Mary & Hassell, Karen, 2011. "Factors influencing pharmacist performance: A review of the peer-reviewed literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 178-192.
    3. Patton, Sarah J. & Miller, Fiona A. & Abrahamyan, Lusine & Rac, Valeria E., 2018. "Expanding the clinical role of community pharmacy: A qualitative ethnographic study of medication reviews in Ontario, Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(3), pages 256-262.
    4. Sally Jacobs & Tom Fegan & Fay Bradley & Devina Halsall & Mark Hann & Ellen I Schafheutle, 2018. "How do organisational configuration and context influence the quantity and quality of NHS services provided by English community pharmacies? A qualitative investigation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-14, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rachel Elliott & Koen Putman & James Davies & Lieven Annemans, 2014. "A Review of the Methodological Challenges in Assessing the Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacist Interventions," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(12), pages 1185-1199, December.
    2. McDonald, Ruth & Cheraghi-Sohi, Sudeh & Sanders, Caroline & Ashcroft, Darren, 2010. "Professional status in a changing world: The case of medicines use reviews in English community pharmacy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 451-458, August.
    3. Motulsky, Aude & Sicotte, Claude & Lamothe, Lise & Winslade, Nancy & Tamblyn, Robyn, 2011. "Electronic prescriptions and disruptions to the jurisdiction of community pharmacists," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 121-128, July.
    4. Perraudin, Clémence & Bugnon, Olivier & Pelletier-Fleury, Nathalie, 2016. "Expanding professional pharmacy services in European community setting: Is it cost-effective? A systematic review for health policy considerations," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(12), pages 1350-1362.
    5. Petrakaki, Dimitra & Barber, Nick & Waring, Justin, 2012. "The possibilities of technology in shaping healthcare professionals: (Re/De-)Professionalisation of pharmacists in England," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 429-437.
    6. Sabrine Elkhodr & Maya Saba & Claire O’Reilly & Bandana Saini, 2018. "The role of community pharmacists in the identification and ongoing management of women at risk for perinatal depression: A qualitative study," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 64(1), pages 37-48, February.
    7. Williams, Kevin Frank, 2007. "Re-examining 'professionalism' in pharmacy: A South African perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(6), pages 1285-1296, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:88:y:2008:i:2-3:p:258-268. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.