SynthesisBMC primary care2025
Perspectives of patients on the role of general practice pharmacists: a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.
Synthesis in BMC primary care, 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.
- Roles and impacts of pharmacists in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder services: a scoping review.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2026Review
- Patients' Perspectives on the Role of General Practice-Based Pharmacists: A Focus Group Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- A provincial survey of patient experiences while receiving care from pharmacists in team-based primary care in British Columbia, Canada.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsTen 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.
conclusionsThis 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.
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.