Children's views on unlicensed/off-label paediatric prescribing and paediatric clinical trials

Objectives - To explore the views and perspectives of children on the unlicensed/off-label use of medicines in children and on the participation of children in clinical trials. Methods - Focus-group discussions, involving school children, were carried out in a range of primary and secondary schools in Northern Ireland. A purposeful sample was chosen to facilitate representation of various socioeconomic groupings. Results - A total of 123 pupils, aged from 10 to 16 years, from six schools, participated in 16 focus groups. In general, pupils viewed the unlicensed/off-label use of medicines in children as unsafe and unethical and felt it is necessary to test medicines in children to improve the availability of licensed products. The majority felt that older children should be told, and that parents should be told, about the unlicensed/off-label use of medicines in children, yet they recognised some implications of this, such as potential medication non-adherence. Conclusions - This is the first study to explore the views of healthy children on unlicensed medicine use in children. Children were able to recognise potential risks associated with the unlicensed use of medicines and felt it is necessary to test and license more medicines in children. Practice implications - Health care professionals should consider the views of children in decisions that affect their health.

A taxonomy of measures for consumer-based brand equity:drawing on the views of managers in Europe

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to identify the components of consumer-based brand equity from the perspective of experts in brand management in the UK, Germany and Greece. Design/methodology/approach: Data were collected from semi-structured interviews with senior brand consultants and managers, five in the UK, five in Germany and five in Greece. Findings: The findings suggested four categories of measures which can be used to define brand equity. These are the consumers' understanding of brand characteristics; consumers' brand evaluation; consumers' affective response towards the brand; and consumers' behaviour towards the brand. Specific dimensions are identified as indicators of each category. Research limitations/implications: Although the focus of this study is Europe, data were only collected from the UK, Germany and Greece, countries representing three of the five European cultural clusters. The resultant taxonomy adds to the fragmented literature on brand equity measurement by proposing four categories to gauge brand equity. Practical implications: The suggested taxonomy provides indicators of a framework managers could use when assessing brand equity. Originality/value: There is little agreement on what constitutes brand equity and therefore measures of brand equity are fragmented. To date, the views of practicing managers have not been taken into account in research. This paper draws on the views of practitioners and academics to suggest a taxonomy of categories of measures for brand equity. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Patients' and health professionals' views on primary care for people with serious mental illness:focus group study

Objective: To explore the experience of providing and receiving primary care from the perspectives of primary care health professionals and patients with serious mental illness respectively. Design: Qualitative study consisting of six patient groups, six health professional groups, and six combined focus groups. Setting: Six primary care trusts in the West Midlands. Participants: Forty five patients with serious mental illness, 39 general practitioners (GPs), and eight practice nurses. Results: Most health professionals felt that the care of people with serious mental illness was too specialised for primary care. However, most patients viewed primary care as the cornerstone of their health care and preferred to consult their own GP, who listened and was willing to learn, rather than be referred to a different GP with specific mental health knowledge. Swift access was important to patients, with barriers created by the effects of the illness and the noisy or crowded waiting area. Some patients described how they exaggerated symptoms ("acted up") to negotiate an urgent appointment, a strategy that was also employed by some GPs to facilitate admission to secondary care. Most participants felt that structured reviews of care had value. However, whereas health professionals perceived serious mental illness as a lifelong condition, patients emphasised the importance of optimism in treatment and hope for recovery. Conclusions: Primary care is of central importance to people with serious mental illness. The challenge for health professionals and patients is to create a system in which patients can see a health professional when they want to without needing to exaggerate their symptoms. The importance that patients attach to optimism in treatment, continuity of care, and listening skills compared with specific mental health knowledge should encourage health professionals in primary care to play a greater role in the care of patients with serious mental illness.

A patient's perspective:the impact of adverse drug reactions on patients and their views on reporting

What is known and objective: Adverse drug reactions to prescribed medication are relatively common events. However, the impact such reactions have on patients and their attitude to reporting such events have only been poorly explored. Previous studies relying on self-reporting patients indicate that altruism is an important factor. In the United Kingdom, patient reporting started in 2005; though, numbers of serious reports remain low. Method: A purposive sample of fifteen patients who had been admitted to an inner city hospital with an adverse drug reaction were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire. Patients were asked to relate in their own words their experience of an adverse drug reaction. Patient's reactions to the information leaflet, adherence to treatment and use of other sources of information on medication were assessed. Interviews were recorded, and a thematic analysis of patients'responses was performed. Results and discussion: Analysis of the patient interviews demonstrated the reality of being admitted to hospital is often a frightening process with a significant emotional cost. Anger, isolation, resentment and blame were common factors, particularly when medicines had been prescribed for acute conditions. For patients with chronic conditions, a more phlegmatic approach was seen especially with conditions with a strong support networks. Patients felt that communication and information should have been more readily available from the health care professional who prescribed the medication, although few had read the patient information leaflet. Only a minority of patients linked the medication they had taken to the adverse event, although some had received false reassurance that the drug was not related to their illness creating additional barriers. In contrast to previous studies, many patients felt that adverse drug reporting was not their concern, particularly as they obtained little direct benefit from it. The majority of patients were unaware of the Yellow Card Scheme in the UK for patient reporting. Even when explained, the scheme was felt too cold and impersonal and not a patient's 'job'. What is new and conclusion: Patients having a severe adverse drug reaction following an acute illness felt negative emotions towards their health care provider. Those with a chronic condition rationalized the event and coped better with its impact. Neither group felt that reporting the adverse reaction was their responsibility. Encouraging patients to report remains important but expecting patients to report solely for altruistic purposes may be unrealistic. © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

LETs and NESTs:voices, views and vignettes

This book is a collection of essays written by teachers and academics working and researching in contexts where Native English-Speaking Teachers (NESTs) are employed and work on a daily basis with Local English Teachers (LETs).

Mental health pharmacists views on shared decision-making for antipsychotics in serious mental illness

Background People diagnosed with serious mental illnesses (SMIs) such as schizophrenia and bipolar affective disorder are frequently treated with antipsychotics. National guidance advises the use of shared decision-making (SDM) in antipsychotic prescribing. There is currently little data on the opinions of health professionals on the role of SDM. Objective To explore the views and experiences of UK mental health pharmacists regarding the use of SDM in antipsychotic prescribing in people diagnosed with SMI. Setting The study was conducted by interviewing secondary care mental health pharmacists in the UK to obtain qualitative data. Methods Semi-structured interviews were recorded. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted using the method of constant comparison. Main outcome measure Themes evolving from mental health pharmacists on SDM in relation to antipsychotic prescribing in people with SMI. Results Thirteen mental health pharmacists were interviewed. SDM was perceived to be linked to positive clinical outcomes including adherence, service user satisfaction and improved therapeutic relations. Despite more prescribers and service users supporting SDM, it was not seen as being practised as widely as it could be; this was attributed to a number of barriers, most predominantly issues surrounding service user’s lacking capacity to engage in SDM and time pressures on clinical staff. The need for greater effort to work around the issues, engage service users and adopt a more inter-professional approach was conveyed. Conclusion The mental health pharmacists support SDM for antipsychotic prescribing, believing that it improves outcomes. However, barriers are seen to limit implementation. More research is needed into overcoming the barriers and measuring the benefits of SDM, along with exploring a more inter-professional approach to SDM.

Does the subject content of the pharmacy degree course influence the community pharmacist’s views on competencies for practice?

Do community pharmacists coming from different educational backgrounds rank the importance of competences for practice differently-or is the way in which they see their profession more influenced by practice than university education? A survey was carried out on 68 competences for pharmacy practice in seven countries with different pharmacy education systems in terms of the relative importance of the subject areas chemical and medicinal sciences. Community pharmacists were asked to rank the competences in terms of relative importance for practice; competences were divided into personal and patient-care competences. The ranking was very similar in the seven countries suggesting that evaluation of competences for practice is based more on professional experience than on prior university education. There were some differences for instance in research-related competences and these may be influenced, by education.