ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2025
Pharmacists' perspectives on potential pharmacist prescribing: a nationwide survey in the Netherlands.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmacists' views on potential non-medical prescribing for pharmacists in Sweden: a nationwide survey study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Pharmacists' views on barriers and enablers to the implementation of advanced pharmacist prescribing in Scotland: a qualitative study using normalisation process theory.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Article
- Pharmacist-Led Prescribing in Austria: A Mixed-Methods Study on Clinical Readiness and Legal Frameworks.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPharmacist prescribing legislation aims to enhance healthcare quality and accessibility. However, in many countries, like the Netherlands, it has not yet been legally established.
aimTo investigate pharmacists' perspectives on potential pharmacist prescribing in the Netherlands.
methodAn online survey using a questionnaire that was distributed via e-mail and electronic newsletters to most practicing pharmacists in the Netherlands during October and November 2023. The questionnaire was based on previous literature, further developed during an international conference with pharmacists and piloted with Dutch pharmacists. Agreement with statements about potential prescribing models, settings, preconditions, and perceived benefits and risks was measured using a 4-point Likert scale. Data were analysed descriptively.
resultsIn total, 625 participants from community pharmacy (n = 432; 69.1%), hospital pharmacy (n = 149; 23.8%), or other/combined settings (n = 44; 7.0%) completed the questionnaire. Most pharmacists (somewhat) agreed with the introduction of an independent prescribing model with limitations (n = 538; 86.1%) or a model dependent on collaborative agreements with physicians (n = 471; 75.4%). A minority (n = 245; 39.2%) supported independent prescribing with diagnostic authority. The precondition that participants most frequently (somewhat) agreed with was access to health records (n = 607; 97.1%). The most (somewhat) agreed-upon benefits were enhanced professional position of pharmacists (n = 574; 91.8%) and reduced workload for other prescribers (n = 573; 91.7%). Increased workload for pharmacists (n = 495; 79.2%) was the most (somewhat) agreed-upon identified risk.
conclusionPharmacists in the Netherlands are generally supportive of an independent but limited or collaborative pharmacist prescribing model. These findings support further investigations into the potential introduction of pharmacist prescribing legislation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.