ArticlePloS one2025
Exploring perceived barriers, facilitators, and team roles in addressing prescribing cascades in primary care teams: Insights from interprofessional focus groups.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrescribing cascades are common contributors to medication-related harm. Primary care clinicians who practice in interprofessional teams may be well positioned to address cascades in practice; although, the factors that influence their ability to do so in this particular setting are largely unknown. Our study aimed to explore perceived barriers and facilitators that influence the identification, investigation, and management of prescribing cascades as experienced by primary care teams and each profession's role in addressing cascades.
methodsPhysicians, nurse practitioners, and pharmacists practicing in primary care teams in Ontario, Canada participated in a series of intra-professional and interprofessional focus groups. The focus groups explored clinician perspectives about factors that influence their ability to address cascades. Discussion and analyses were guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Behaviour Change Wheel.
resultsSixteen clinicians participated in four intra-professional and one interprofessional focus groups. Thematic analysis resulted in two main themes. First, multiple factors influenced primary care teams' ability to address prescribing cascades. Cascades were considered complex in terms of the processes required to identify, investigate, and manage them. Second, the role each profession was able or willing to play varied based on their capability, opportunity, and motivation. Nurse practitioners and physicians felt best equipped to prevent cascades within a patient visit, while pharmacists endorsed being able and willing to address existing cascades.
conclusionThe ability to address prescribing cascades is influenced by multiple factors and varied across professions within interprofessional primary care teams. The study findings provide additional information necessary for the design of future interventions to assist clinicians with addressing cascades. Future research should engage patients, caregivers, and community pharmacists to further explore their roles in addressing prescribing cascades.
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.