↓ 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 Family Practice, 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 (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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 Family Practice, 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 19%
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 8 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 30%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 9%
Psychology 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 10 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 01 August 2019.
All research outputs
#1,466,443
of 15,561,399 outputs
Outputs from BMC Family Practice
#183
of 1,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,191
of 366,434 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Family Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,561,399 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,573 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 366,434 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them