↓ Skip to main content

Identifying enablers and barriers to individually tailored prescribing: a survey of healthcare professionals in the UK

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
22 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Identifying enablers and barriers to individually tailored prescribing: a survey of healthcare professionals in the UK
Published in
BMC Primary Care, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12875-017-0705-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanne Reeve, Nicky Britten, Richard Byng, Jo Fleming, Janet Heaton, Janet Krska

Abstract

Many people now take multiple medications on a long-term basis to manage health conditions. Optimising the benefit of such polypharmacy requires tailoring of medicines use to the needs and circumstances of individuals. However, professionals report barriers to achieving this in practice. In this study, we examined health professionals' perceptions of enablers and barriers to delivering individually tailored prescribing. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) informed an on-line survey of health professionals' views of enablers and barriers to implementation of Individually Tailored Prescribing (ITP) of medicines. Links to the survey were sent out through known professional networks using a convenience/snowball sampling approach. Survey questions sought to identify perceptions of supports/barriers for ITP within the four domains of work described by NPT: sense making, engagement, action and monitoring. Analysis followed the framework approach developed in our previous work. Four hundred and nineteen responses were included in the final analysis (67.3% female, 32.7% male; 52.7% nurse prescribers, 19.8% pharmacists and 21.8% GPs). Almost half (44.9%) were experienced practitioners (16+ years in practice); around one third reported already routinely offering ITP to their patients. GPs were the group least likely to recognise this as consistent usual practice. Findings revealed general support for the principles of ITP but significant variation and inconsistency in understanding and implementation in practice. Our findings reveal four key implications for practice: the need to raise understanding of ITP as a legitimate part of professional practice; to prioritise the work of ITP within the range of individual professional activity; to improve the consistency of training and support for interpretive practice; and to review the impact of formal and informal monitoring processes on practice. The findings will inform the ongoing development of our new complex intervention (PRIME Prescribing) to support the individual tailoring of medicines needed to address problematic polypharmacy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 18%
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 22 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 7%
Psychology 5 6%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 27 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 June 2023.
All research outputs
#1,784,422
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#185
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,429
of 469,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#5
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 469,130 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.