ArticleAustralasian journal on ageing2026
'A Joint Effort': Stakeholders' Perspectives of Medication Management Reviews in Australian Residential Aged Care.
Article in Australasian journal on ageing, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveResidential Medication Management Review (RMMR) is a government-funded pharmacist-led service to address medication-related problems, such as polypharmacy, which are prevalent in aged care. Despite known benefits, concerns remain about the service's effective implementation to benefit residents. We aimed to explore stakeholders' perspectives of the service and identify challenges and improvement opportunities.
methodA qualitative study was conducted using individual interviews and focus groups with 21 stakeholders, including general practitioners (GPs), a nurse practitioner, registered nurses, pharmacists and consumers. Audio transcripts of the discussions were thematically analysed using inductive coding.
resultsSeven interconnected themes were identified, highlighting complexities in RMMR implementation and its role in medication optimisation in aged care. Consumer participation was limited, with low awareness and engagement despite a strong desire for involvement. General practitioners played a central role, acting as both enablers and gatekeepers. Despite the recognised value of interdisciplinary collaboration, professional silos and communication gaps created tensions. Review quality varied, with resident-centred and contextualised recommendations seen as more impactful. Improved integration of digital systems was viewed as a key enabler, though existing systems were often fragmented. Workforce and funding constraints limited provider motivation and service delivery. Finally, RMMRs were often reactive, highlighting opportunities to shift towards more proactive and transparent processes.
conclusionsOverall, RMMRs are a complex system-dependent process. Initiatives addressing identified challenges and strengthening consumer participation, improving interdisciplinary collaboration, integrating digital solutions and targeted policy reforms may enhance RMMR uptake and impact in Australian aged care.
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.