Factors Facilitating and Hindering Development of a Medication Use Review Service in Eastern Europe and Iran-Cross-Sectional Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polypharmacy is a common issue in patients with chronic diseases. Eastern-European countries and Iran are exploring possibilities for implementing the Medication Use Review (MUR) as a measure for optimizing medication use and ensuring medication safety in polypharmacy patients. The aim of this study was to gain insights into the development of the community pharmacy sector and map facilitators and barriers of MUR in Eastern Europe and Iran. The representatives of the framework countries received a questionnaire on community pharmacy sector indicators, current and future developments of pharmacies, and factors encouraging and hindering MUR. To answer the questionnaire, all representatives performed document analysis, literature review, and qualitative interviews with key stakeholders. The socio-ecological model was used for inductive thematic analysis of the identified factors. Current community pharmacist competencies in framework countries were more related to traditional pharmacy services. Main facilitators of MUR were increase in polypharmacy and pharmaceutical waste, and access to patients' electronic list of medications by pharmacists. Main barriers included the service being unfamiliar, lack of funding and private consultation areas. Pharmacists in the framework countries are well-placed to provide MUR, however, the service needs more introduction and barriers mostly on organizational and public policy levels must be addressed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".