Exploring the implementation of pharmacist prescribing in Middle Eastern Arab countries: a scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Traditionally, the act of medication prescribing has been associated with physicians. The prescribing practice of healthcare professionals other than physicians is known as non-medical prescribing. Non-medical prescribers include pharmacists who have attained an advanced qualification in prescribing and are licensed by their professional regulatory bodies. Pharmacist prescribing is becoming more common in several countries and across care settings. Several countries have implemented pharmacist prescribing, such as the United Kingdom (UK), Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand. Over the last decade, the pharmacy profession has experienced a significant increase in the range of medications that pharmacists can prescribe.Currently, pharmacist prescribing is considered a novel area of practice in Middle Eastern Arab countries. The evolving nature of pharmacist prescribing, as evidenced by recent published research, underlines the importance of further exploration. To date, a limited number of published studies have investigated pharmacist prescribing in these countries. This scoping review is essential for gaining a deeper understanding of the role of pharmacists in the prescribing process in these countries, thereby contributing to the existing knowledge of pharmacy practice in this region. Furthermore, the availability of such evidence may inform the implementation of pharmacist prescribing practice in countries where this practice is in its infancy.This scoping review aims to explore the current state of pharmacist prescribing in Middle Eastern Arab countries, which will be accomplished through addressing the following objectives: identify which countries have implemented pharmacist prescribing and the required qualifications to gain the authority to prescribe; describe its implementation in terms of the models of prescribing being followed; and identify the barriers and facilitators that affect its implementation.The scoping review will follow the recommendations in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. The review will include studies with a range of study designs, including quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods studies, observational studies, surveys, interviews, focus groups, case studies, and systematic reviews.The studies will be included if they describe pharmacist prescribing in the following Middle Eastern Arab countries: Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Studies can be published in English or Arabic. Studies will be excluded if they are focused on pharmacists’ other roles, conducted in Arabic-speaking countries in North Africa, and written in languages other than English or ArabicA comprehensive search will be conducted using the following five electronic databases: Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL, from the time of inception to August 2024. Potentially relevant grey literature will also be identified through targeted searches of dissertations/theses, and conference abstracts using Google Scholar, ProQuest, OpenGrey, and ProQuest Dissertations. The searches will be executed during August 2024, using search terms developed with input from a subject librarian from the Medical Library at Queen’s University Belfast.Two reviewers (RA and HM) will independently screen titles and abstracts of the eligible studies. Two reviewers (RA and CMH) will conduct full-text screening of the selected studies. In case of uncertainty about an article’s eligibility for inclusion, assistance from a third reviewer (HB) will be sought. A data charting table has been created using Microsoft Excel to compile the results of the scoping review. The data charting table will include the following: author, year of publication, aim, study design, study setting, country, model of prescribing, required qualifications, facilitators, barriers, and study recommendations. The use of the data extraction table has been tested on three studies before the data extraction process and refined accordingly.Descriptive analysis (frequency and percentages) will be used to present the synthesised results. This will provide a numerical overview of the type, number, and distribution of the included studies. Articles will be grouped according to the aim. A narrative report will be produced to summarise the charted data.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,037 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,011 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».