The impact of drug information on the prescribing of drugs

Using prescription analyses and questionnaires, the way drug information was used by general medical practitioners during the drug adoption process was studied. Three new drugs were considered; an innovation and two 'me-too' products. The innovation was accepted by general practitioners via a contagion process, information passing among doctors. The 'me-too' preparations were accepted more slowly and by a process which did not include the contagion effect. 'Industrial' information such as direct mail was used more at the 'awareness' stage of the adoption process while 'professional' sources of information such as articles in medical journals were used more to evaluate a new product. It was shown that 'industrial' information was preferred by older single practice doctors who did not specialise, had a first degree only and who did not dispense their own prescriptions. Doctors were divided into early and late-prescribers by using the date they first prescribed the innovatory drug. Their approach to drug information sources was further studied and it was shown that the early-prescriber issued slightly more prescriptions per month, had a larger list size, read fewer journals and generally rated industrial sources of information more highly than late-prescribers. The prescribing habits of three consultant rheumatologists were analysed and compared with those of the general practitioners in the community which they served. Very little association was noted and the influence of the consultant on the prescribing habits of general practitioners was concluded to be low. The consultants influence was suggested to be of two components, active and passive; the active component being the most influential. Journal advertising and advertisement placement were studied for one of the 'me-too' drugs. It was concluded that advertisement placement should be based on the reading patterns of general practitioners and not on ad-hoc data gathered by representatives as was the present practice. A model was proposed relating the 'time to prescribe' a new drug to the variables suggested throughout this work. Four of these variables were shown to be significant. These were, the list size, the medical age of the prescriber, the number of new preparations prescribed in a given time and the number of partners in the practice.

Medicines optimisation for young people with juvenile arthritis and other long-term conditions:system-level barriers to engagement

To explore the views of pharmacy and rheumatology stakeholders about system-related barriers to medicines optimisation activities with young people with long-term conditions. A three-phase consensus-building study comprising (1) focus groups with community and hospital pharmacists; (2) semi-structured telephone interviews with lay and professional adolescent rheumatology stakeholders and pharmacy policymakers, and (3) multidisciplinary discussion groups with community and hospital pharmacists and rheumatology staff. Qualitative verbatim transcripts from phases 1 and 2 were subjected to framework analysis. Themes from phase 1 underpinned a briefing for phase 2 interviewees. Themes from phases 1 and 2 generated elements of good pharmacy practice and current/future pharmacy roles for ranking in phase 3. Results from phase 3 prioritisation and ranking exercises were captured on self-completion data collection forms, entered into an Excel spreadsheet and subjected to descriptive statistical analysis. Institutional ethical approval was given by Aston University Health and Life Sciences Research Ethics Committee. Four focus groups were conducted with 18 pharmacists across England, Scotland and Wales (7 hospital, 10 community and 1 community/public health). Fifteen stakeholders took part in telephone interviews (3 pharmacist commissioners; 2 pharmacist policymakers; 2 pharmacy staff members (1 community and 1 hospital); 4 rheumatologists; 1 specialist nurse, and 3 lay juvenile arthritis advocates). Twenty-five participants took part in three discussion groups in adolescent rheumatology centres across England and Scotland (9 community pharmacists; 4 hospital pharmacists; 6 rheumatologists; 5 specialist nurses, and 1 physiotherapist). In all phases of the study, system-level issues were acknowledged as barriers to more engagement with young people and families. Community pharmacists in the focus groups reported that opportunities for engaging with young people were low if parents collected prescriptions alone, which was agreed by other stakeholders. Moreover, institutional/company prescription collection policies – an activity largely disallowed for a young person under 16 without an accompanying parent - were identified by hospital and community pharmacists as barriers to open discussion and engagement. Few community pharmacists reported using Medicines Use Review (England/Wales) or Chronic Medication Service (Scotland) as a medicines optimisation activity with young people; many were unsure about consent procedures. Despite these limitations, rheumatology stakeholders ranked highly the potential of pharmacists empowering young people with general health care skills, such as repeat prescription ordering. The pharmacy profession lacks vision for its role in the care of young people with long-term conditions. Pharmacists and rheumatology stakeholders identified system-level barriers to more engagement with young people who take medicines regularly. We acknowledge that the modest number of participants may have had a specific interest and thus bias for the topic, but this underscores their frank admission of the challenges. Professional guidance and policy, practice frameworks and institutional/company policies must promote flexibility for pharmacy staff to recognise and empower young people who are able to give consent and take responsibility for medicines activities. This will increase mutual confidence and trust, and foster pharmacy’s role in teaching general health care skills. In this way, pharmacists will be able to build long-term relationships with young people and families.