How is the language of medicines use review leaflets symbolising the service?

Introduction The medicines use review (MUR), a new community pharmacy ‘service’, was launched in England and Wales to improve patients’ knowledge and use of medicines through a private, patient–pharmacist appointment. After 18 months, only 30% of pharmacies are providing MURs; at an average of 120 per annum (maximum 400 allowed).1 One reason linked to low delivery is patient recruitment.2 Our aim was to examine how the MUR is symbolised and given meaning via printed patient information, and potential implications. Method The language of 10 MUR patient leaflets, including the NHS booklet,3 and leaflets from multiples and wholesalers was evaluated by discourse analysis. Results and Discussion Before experiencing MURs, patients conceivably ‘categorise’ relationships with pharmacists based on traditional interactions.4 Yet none of the leaflets explicitly describe the MUR as ‘new’ and presuppose patients would become involved in activities outside of their pre-existing relationship with pharmacists such as appointments, self-completion of charts, and pharmacy action plans. The MUR process is described inconsistently, with interchangeable use of formal (‘review meeting‘) and informal (‘friendly’) terminology, the latter presumably to portray an intended ‘negotiation model’ of interaction.5 Assumptions exist about attitudes (‘not understanding’; ‘problems’) that might lead patients to an appointment. However, research has identified a multitude of reasons why patients choose (or not) to consult practitioners,6 and marketing of MURs should also consider other barriers. For example, it may be prudent to remove time limits to avoid implying patients might not be listened to fully, during what is for them an additional practitioner consultation.

Conceptualising public-private partnerships: a critical appraisal of approaches to meanings and forms

Purpose – The purpose of this article is to survey various meanings attached to a public-private partnership (PPP) and related aspects in Western literature, and identify commonalities and differences between them. Additionally, the article intends to critically assess conflicting and overlapping views on contractual and institutional PPPs, their forms and models, and draw insights for transitional economies. Design/methodology/approach – The article contrasts and compares views on PPP meanings, forms and models within Western PPP literature, and also draws comparisons with understanding of partnership aspects in the Russian language sources. The article examines theories underpinning PPPs, builds connections to PPP advantages and drawbacks, and provides critical assessment of net benefits that PPPs may bring along to the society. Findings – The article concludes that future PPP research in transitional countries such as Kazakhstan and Russia, particularly in the area of organisational and power arrangements in partnerships, may delineate new concepts such as government as a guarantor of a PPP project, social significance of a PPP project, and risk management in a country's contextual environment. Practical implications – In transitional countries, in which PPPs are in their infancy, clarification of theoretical positions, and identification of commonalities and differences between meanings attached to the PPP terminology may enable better decisions by researchers and practitioners in their selection and further development of partnerships and related concepts. Originality/value – Research in the field of PPPs in transitional countries such as Russia and Kazakhstan is in its infancy. The paper intends to contribute to the body of knowledge about PPPs by providing detailed account and categorisation of their principal meanings, forms, models, underpinning theories, and drawing insights for future research in transitional countries.