Abstract:Objectives Most women who use emergency contraception (EC) do so because of unprotected sexual intercourse or condom failure and so remain at risk of pregnancy unless they commence an effective method of contraception. In Great Britain, increasingly women now choose to obtain EC from a pharmacy; however, pharmacists do not currently provide effective ongoing contraception. We sought to determine the views of women obtaining EC from pharmacies and clinicians working in sexual and reproductive health care (SRH) … Show more
“…Some GPs did not see extended pharmacy services as a priority for them (Wilcock & Harding, ), were not convinced that these services reduced their workload (Atkins et al., ; Latif et al., ; Porteous & Bond, ) and preferred services to be simplified (Porteous & Bond, ; Wilcock & Harding, ). Even when GPs were supportive of community pharmacy services (Blenkinsopp, Tann, Evans, & Grime, ; Michie, Cameron, Glasier, & Greed, ; Morecroft et al., ; Wilcock & Harding, ), this was associated with suggestions that they supervised and authorised pharmacists’ activities (Blenkinsopp et al., ; Bradley et al., ; Maddox, Halsall, Hall, & Tully, ; Michie et al., ).I guess we need to educate them, but I don't feel that's my responsibility…we're going to have to chase it up and make sure they are doing it properly. (GP, Bradley et al., )…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even when GPs were supportive of community pharmacy services (Blenkinsopp, Tann, Evans, & Grime, 2008;Michie, Cameron, Glasier, & Greed, 2014;Morecroft et al, 2015;Wilcock & Harding, 2007), this was associated with suggestions that they supervised and authorised pharmacists' activities (Blenkinsopp et al, 2008;Bradley et al, 2012;Maddox, Halsall, Hall, & Tully, 2016;Michie et al, 2014).…”
Section: Perceived Value Of Services/rolesmentioning
There has been a strong policy emphasis over the past decade on optimising patient-centred care and reducing general practitioners' (GPs') workload by extending community pharmacy services and collaboration between pharmacists and GPs. Our aim was to review current evidence of pharmacists' and GPs' views of extended community pharmacy services and pharmacists' roles in the United Kingdom (UK). A systematic review was undertaken looking at UK studies investigating pharmacists' and/or GPs' views of community pharmacy services or roles from 2005 to 2017. A range of databases were searched including EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), PsycINFO, Science Direct and The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). In addition, reference lists of included studies were screened and grey literature was searched. Following the application of inclusion/exclusion criteria, the quality of papers was critically analysed, findings were extracted into a grid and subjected to narrative synthesis following thematic analysis. The search strategy yielded a total of 4,066 unique papers from which 60 were included. Forty-seven papers covered pharmacists' views, nine combined both pharmacists' and GPs' views and four covered GPs' views. Study designs included interviews (n = 31, 52%), questionnaire surveys (n = 17, 28%) and focus groups (n = 7, 12%). Three main themes emerged from the data: "attitudes towards services/roles", "community pharmacy organisations" and "external influences". Pharmacists and GPs perceived a number of barriers to successful implementation and integration of pharmacy services. Moreover, collaboration between pharmacists and GPs remains poor despite the introduction of extended services. Overall, extending community pharmacy services require quality-driven incentives and joint working between community pharmacists and GPs to achieve better integration within the patient's primary care pathway.
“…Some GPs did not see extended pharmacy services as a priority for them (Wilcock & Harding, ), were not convinced that these services reduced their workload (Atkins et al., ; Latif et al., ; Porteous & Bond, ) and preferred services to be simplified (Porteous & Bond, ; Wilcock & Harding, ). Even when GPs were supportive of community pharmacy services (Blenkinsopp, Tann, Evans, & Grime, ; Michie, Cameron, Glasier, & Greed, ; Morecroft et al., ; Wilcock & Harding, ), this was associated with suggestions that they supervised and authorised pharmacists’ activities (Blenkinsopp et al., ; Bradley et al., ; Maddox, Halsall, Hall, & Tully, ; Michie et al., ).I guess we need to educate them, but I don't feel that's my responsibility…we're going to have to chase it up and make sure they are doing it properly. (GP, Bradley et al., )…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even when GPs were supportive of community pharmacy services (Blenkinsopp, Tann, Evans, & Grime, 2008;Michie, Cameron, Glasier, & Greed, 2014;Morecroft et al, 2015;Wilcock & Harding, 2007), this was associated with suggestions that they supervised and authorised pharmacists' activities (Blenkinsopp et al, 2008;Bradley et al, 2012;Maddox, Halsall, Hall, & Tully, 2016;Michie et al, 2014).…”
Section: Perceived Value Of Services/rolesmentioning
There has been a strong policy emphasis over the past decade on optimising patient-centred care and reducing general practitioners' (GPs') workload by extending community pharmacy services and collaboration between pharmacists and GPs. Our aim was to review current evidence of pharmacists' and GPs' views of extended community pharmacy services and pharmacists' roles in the United Kingdom (UK). A systematic review was undertaken looking at UK studies investigating pharmacists' and/or GPs' views of community pharmacy services or roles from 2005 to 2017. A range of databases were searched including EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), PsycINFO, Science Direct and The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). In addition, reference lists of included studies were screened and grey literature was searched. Following the application of inclusion/exclusion criteria, the quality of papers was critically analysed, findings were extracted into a grid and subjected to narrative synthesis following thematic analysis. The search strategy yielded a total of 4,066 unique papers from which 60 were included. Forty-seven papers covered pharmacists' views, nine combined both pharmacists' and GPs' views and four covered GPs' views. Study designs included interviews (n = 31, 52%), questionnaire surveys (n = 17, 28%) and focus groups (n = 7, 12%). Three main themes emerged from the data: "attitudes towards services/roles", "community pharmacy organisations" and "external influences". Pharmacists and GPs perceived a number of barriers to successful implementation and integration of pharmacy services. Moreover, collaboration between pharmacists and GPs remains poor despite the introduction of extended services. Overall, extending community pharmacy services require quality-driven incentives and joint working between community pharmacists and GPs to achieve better integration within the patient's primary care pathway.
“…A study of nearly 500 contraception providers in the United States showed almost three-quarters supported pharmacists initiating combined hormonal contraception (CHC), progestogen-only pills (POPs) and injectable contraception (IC),18 and a UK study of SRH clinicians showed that >90% felt positively about pharmacists initiating POP at the time of EC 19…”
IntroductionReduced funding to contraceptive services in the UK is resulting in restricted access for women. Pharmacists are already embedded in sexual and reproductive health (SRH) care in the UK and could provide an alternative way for women to access contraception. The aim of this study was to determine the views of UK contraception providers about community pharmacist-led contraception provision.MethodsAn anonymous questionnaire was distributed to healthcare professionals at two UK SRH events, asking respondents about: (1) the use of patient group directions (PGDs) for pharmacist provision of oral contraception (OC); (2) the sale of OC as a pharmacy medicine or general sales list medicine; (3) the perceived impact of pharmacy provision of OC on broader SRH outcomes; and (4) if other contraceptive methods should be provided in pharmacies.ResultsOf 240 questionnaires distributed, 174 (72.5%) were returned. Respondents largely supported pharmacy-led provision of all non-uterine methods of contraception, excluding the contraceptive implant. Provision of the progestogen-only pill by PGD was most strongly supported (78% supported initiation). Respondents felt that the use of bridging (temporary) contraception would improve (103/144, 71.5%), use of effective contraception would increase (81/141, 57.4%), and unintended pregnancies would decline (71/130, 54.6%); but that use of long-acting reversible contraception would decrease (86/143, 60.1%). Perceived barriers included pharmacists’ capacity and competency to provide a full contraception consultation, safeguarding concerns, and women having to pay for contraception.ConclusionsUK SRH providers were largely supportive of community pharmacy-led provision of contraception, with training and referral pathways being required to support contraception delivery by pharmacists.
“…Of course, women are increasingly choosing to access EC from the pharmacy (in countries where this is available without prescription), but most pharmacists cannot provide ongoing hormonal contraception without a prescription. In a survey of women attending UK pharmacies for EC, 64% indicated that they would value the opportunity to receive a supply of contraception from the pharmacy . A pilot study showed that women provided with a 1‐month supply of a progestogen‐only pill along with EC from a pharmacy were more likely to be using effective contraception 2 months later than women attending pharmacies where they only received advice on where to obtain supplies of contraception (56% versus 16%).…”
Section: Contraception After Ecmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a survey of women attending UK pharmacies for EC, 64% indicated that they would value the opportunity to receive a supply of contraception from the pharmacy. 76 A pilot study showed that women provided with a 1-month supply of a progestogen-only pill along with EC from a pharmacy were more likely to be using effective contraception 2 months later than women attending pharmacies where they only received advice on where to obtain supplies of contraception (56% versus 16%). Larger robust studies are needed to determine if this strategy can increase the uptake of effective contraception after EC from the pharmacy.…”
Section: Do Women Want To Start Effective Contraception After Ec?mentioning
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
