Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41311844›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025

Pharmacist prescriber implementation in the experiences of general practitioners, pharmacist prescribers and patients: qualitative study based on pilot trial in Slovenia.

Matej Stuhec, Alenka Kovacic, Marjetka Korpar, Ana Banovic Koscak, Barbara Koder, Dunja Mahoric, Spela Bernik Golubic, Vesna Homar, Aleksander Stepanovic, Danica Rotar Pavlic and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Matej Stuhec *Department of Pharmacology and Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Medical Faculty Maribor, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Alenka KovacicDepartment of Pharmacology and Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Medical Faculty Maribor, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Marjetka KorparDepartment of Pharmacology and Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Medical Faculty Maribor, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Ana Banovic KoscakGoriška Lekarna Nova Gorica, Nova Gorica, Slovenia.
Barbara KoderGorenjske Lekarne, Kranj, Slovenia.
Dunja MahoricLekarna Toplek, Ptuj, Slovenia.
Spela Bernik GolubicSlovene Chamber of Pharmacy, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Vesna HomarDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Aleksander StepanovicDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Danica Rotar PavlicDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Eva Gorup CedilnikDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Medication review services have been nationally implemented in Slovenia, and a pilot program for pharmacist prescribing has already been conducted. Qualitative evidence is required to support its integration into healthcare systems. Aim: The aim was to explore the experiences of general practitioners (GPs), patients, and clinical pharmacist prescribers regarding the national pilot trial and possible implementation of pharmacist prescribing in Slovenia. Methods: A qualitative study design using semi-structured interviews was applied. A working group developed and piloted the interview guide. Pharmacist prescribers, GPs, and patients involved in a pharmacist prescribing pilot trial in Slovenia were invited via email. Recruitment continued until data saturation was achieved. Purposive sampling was used for recruitment. Interviews were conducted between May and August 2025, recorded, and transcribed in MAXQDA. Data were analysed thematically using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The research team agreed upon final coding. The COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) checklist was applied to ensure methodological rigour. Results: Seventeen participants were interviewed: four pharmacist prescribers, five patients, and eight GPs. Across all groups, participants expressed positive experiences with integrating pharmacist prescribers into the Slovenian healthcare system. Patients valued enhanced monitoring by clinical pharmacists and perceived improved quality of prescribing and clinical outcomes. GPs highlighted effective collaboration, particularly through medication review, as a foundation for pharmacist prescribing. Pharmacist prescribers reported professional satisfaction with monitoring and prescribing responsibilities. GPs and pharmacist prescribers expressed satisfaction with the collaborative practice agreement (CPA) developed in Slovenia and considered dependent prescribing the most appropriate model for initial implementation. Reported barriers included the absence of legislation, reimbursement mechanisms, and structured education. Both pharmacist prescribers and GPs emphasised the need for additional competencies for pharmacist prescribers in Slovenia. Conclusion: This is the first qualitative study examining a pharmacist prescribing pilot outside Anglo-Saxon countries based on experiences from a real national pilot. Findings indicate positive experiences among stakeholders and support for implementation of pharmacist prescriber in Slovenia, with implications for broader applicability.

Indexed as

family medicinemedication reviewpatientspharmacist prescribersqualitative study

Identifiers

PMID41311844
PMCPMC12646872

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.