Perspectives of patients on the role of general practice pharmacists: a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a scarcity of research about patients' perspectives on the role of general practice pharmacists (GPPs). In this review, we aimed to compile qualitative evidence of patients' perspectives regarding the role of GPPs. METHODS: A systematic, qualitative meta-synthesis was undertaken. A comprehensive search was conducted on six databases. Additionally, the reference lists of included studies were searched. Findings and verbatim quotes were extracted from the included studies and were analysed using thematic synthesis. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist was employed to evaluate the quality of the included studies. The GRADE-CERQual approach was utilised to evaluate confidence in the findings. RESULTS: Ten qualitative studies were included. Four main themes were identified: awareness of the GPP (patients were unaware of the GPP's role), accessibility to the GPP (some patients had difficulties arranging appointments with GPPs), benefits and challenges (medication review conducted by GPPs reaffirmed patients' trust in taking their medicines, although some were dissatisfied with the medication review process), and GPP integration into general practice (successful integration of GPPs was attributed to their skills and teamwork). The included studies satisfied all or at least seven out of the ten criteria of the CASP checklist. GRADE-CERQual indicated high confidence for one theme, and moderate confidence for three themes. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies provides valuable insights into patients' perspectives on the role of GPPs. The findings highlight both positive aspects and challenges associated with GPP integration into primary care, including concerns about role awareness and accessibility. These findings suggest that while GPPs can add value to general practice teams, there is a need for improved patient education about the GPP role and enhanced accessibility to maximise the potential benefits of the GPPs. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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 | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| 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".