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.

Differences in perceived risks and benefits of herbal, over-the-counter conventional, and prescribed conventional, medicines, and the implications of this for the safe and effective use of herbal products

Objectives: To investigate people's views about the efficacy and specific risks of herbal, over-the-counter (OTC) conventional, and prescribed conventional medicines, and their likelihood of taking a second (herbal or OTC conventional) product in addition to a prescribed medicine. Methods: Experiment 1 (1 factor within-participant design); Experiment 2 (1 factor between-participant design). Convenience samples of general population were given a hypothetical scenario and required to make a number of judgements. Results: People believed herbal remedies to be less effective, but less risky than OTC and prescribed conventional medicines. Herbal medicines were not seen as being safer simply because of their easier availability. Participants indicated that they would be more likely to take a herbal medicine than a conventional OTC medicine in addition to a prescribed medicine, and less likely to consult their doctor in advance. Conclusion: People believe that herbal medicines are natural and relatively safe and can be used with less caution. People need to be given clear information about the risks and benefits of herbal medicines if they are to use such products safety and effectively. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Consulting young children about barriers and supports to learning

From consideration of children's rights in general and equal opportunities for disabled children in particular, it is important to consult children about barriers and supports to learning and participation. Finding appropriate and feasible ways, however, to incorporate this into educational programmes for younger children can present challenges. Here we report on what happened when teachers from reception classes in England for children aged 4–5 years implemented activities designed to access pupils' views about what helps or hinders at school. Teachers evaluated the feasibility and usefulness of the activities and, together with a small sample of children's responses, this showed that young children could indeed identify aspects of school life they like or dislike, laying the foundations for identifying barriers and supports to learning. Teachers' responses highlighted the importance of careful choice of activity to meet the needs of young children, particularly those with communication difficulties and/or low self-confidence, with staff in some cases adapting and merging activities to suit pupils' needs. Sensitive issues emerged concerning the introduction of consultation activities early in children's school careers. The implications of a compliant rather than collaborative approach by teachers are discussed in the context of children's right to have their views heard, and their developing understanding of difference.