Prioritising Key Concepts for informed health choices in cancer: An evidence-based online educational programme.

Objective: The overabundance of health misinformation has undermined people's capacity to make evidence-based, informed choices about their health. Using the Informed Health Choices (IHC) Key Concepts (KCs), we are developing a two-stage education programme, Informed Health Choices-Cancer (IHC-C), to provide those impacted by cancer with the knowledge and skills necessary to think critically about the reliability of health information and claims and make well-informed choices. Stage 1 seeks to prioritise the most relevant Key Concepts. Methods: A project group and a patient and carer participation group completed a two-round prioritisation process. The process involved disseminating pre-reading materials, training sessions, and a structured judgement form to evaluate concepts for inclusion. Data from each round were analysed to reach a consensus on the concepts to include. Results: Fourteen participants were recruited and completed the first-round prioritisation. Fifteen participants undertook the second-round prioritisation. Nine Key Concepts were selected for the programme across five training sessions and two consensus meetings. Conclusion: The prioritised concepts identified represent the most pertinent aspects of cancer-related information for those impacted by the disease. By incorporating these concepts into educational materials and communication strategies, healthcare providers and organisations can potentially help cancer patients, survivors, and their loved ones to recognise and combat cancer-related misinformation more effectively. Innovation: This study introduces a participatory prioritisation process, which integrates the expertise of healthcare professionals with the insights of patients and carers, thereby enhancing the programme's relevance and applicability.

Priority III: top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities identified using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

OBJECTIVES: A rapid review is a form of evidence synthesis considered a resource-efficient alternative to the conventional systematic review. Despite a dramatic rise in the number of rapid reviews commissioned and conducted in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, published evidence on the optimal methods of planning, doing, and sharing the results of these reviews is lacking. The Priority III study aimed to identify the top 10 unanswered questions on rapid review methodology to be addressed by future research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership approach was adopted. This approach used two online surveys and a virtual prioritization workshop with patients and the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers, and funders to identify and prioritize unanswered questions. RESULTS: Patients and the public, researchers, reviewers, clinicians, policymakers, and funders identified and prioritized the top 10 unanswered research questions about rapid review methodology. Priorities were identified throughout the entire review process, from stakeholder involvement and formulating the question, to the methods of a systematic review that are appropriate to use, through to the dissemination of results. CONCLUSION: The results of the Priority III study will inform the future research agenda on rapid review methodology. We hope this will enhance the quality of evidence produced by rapid reviews, which will ultimately inform decision-making in the context of healthcare.

Prioritising Informed Health Choices Key Concepts for those impacted by cancer: a protocol.

Background: Few areas of health have been as insidiously influenced by misinformation as cancer. Thus, interventions that can help people impacted by cancer reduce the extent to which they are victims of misinformation are necessary. The Informed Health Choices (IHC) initiative has developed Key Concepts that can be used in the development of interventions for evaluating the trustworthiness of claims about the effects of health treatments. We are developing an online education programme called Informed Health Choices-Cancer (IHC-C) based on the IHC Key Concepts. We will provide those impacted by cancer with the knowledge and skills necessary to think critically about the reliability of health information and claims and make informed choices. Methods: We will establish a steering group (SG) of 12 key stakeholders, including oncology specialists and academics. In addition, we will establish a patient and public involvement (PPI) panel of 20 people impacted by cancer. After training the members on the Key Concepts and the prioritisation process, we will conduct a two-round prioritisation process. In the first round, 12 SG members and four PPI panel members will prioritise Key Concepts for inclusion. In the second round, the remaining 16 PPI members will undertake the prioritisation based on the prioritised Key Concepts from the first round. Participants in both rounds will use a structured judgement form to rate the importance of the Key Concepts for inclusion in the online IHC-C programme. A consensus meeting will be held, where members will reach a consensus on the Key Concepts to be included and rank the order in which the prioritised Key Concepts will be addressed in the IHC-C programme. Conclusions: At the end of this process, we will identify which Key Concepts should be included and the order in which they should be addressed in the IHC-C programme.

What are the most important unanswered research questions on rapid review methodology? A James Lind Alliance research methodology Priority Setting Partnership: the Priority III study protocol.

Background: The value of rapid reviews in informing health care decisions is more evident since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While systematic reviews can be completed rapidly, rapid reviews are usually a type of evidence synthesis in which components of the systematic review process may be simplified or omitted to produce information more efficiently within constraints of time, expertise, funding or any combination thereof. There is an absence of high-quality evidence underpinning some decisions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. We will conduct a modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to determine the top 10 unanswered research questions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews in collaboration with patients, public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders. Methods: An international steering group consisting of key stakeholder perspectives (patients, the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders) will facilitate broad reach, recruitment and participation across stakeholder groups. An initial online survey will identify stakeholders' perceptions of research uncertainties about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. Responses will be categorised to generate a long list of questions. The list will be checked against systematic reviews published within the past three years to identify if the question is unanswered. A second online stakeholder survey will rank the long list in order of priority. Finally, a virtual consensus workshop of key stakeholders will agree on the top 10 unanswered questions. Discussion: Research prioritisation is an important means for minimising research waste and ensuring that research resources are targeted towards answering the most important questions. Identifying the top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities will help target research to improve how we plan, do and share rapid reviews and ultimately enhance the use of high-quality synthesised evidence to inform health care policy and practice.

Pharmacist prescribing in primary care: the views of patients across Great Britain who had experienced the service.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the views of patients across primary care settings in Great Britain who had experienced pharmacist prescribing. METHODS All Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) prescribers (n = 1622) were invited to participate. Those consenting were asked to invite up to five consecutive patients who had experienced their prescribing to participate. Patients were mailed one questionnaire and a reminder. The questionnaire included five sections: demographics; you and your pharmacist prescriber; you and your general practitioner; your views and experiences based on your most recent pharmacist prescriber consultation; and additional views. KEY FINDINGS Of the 482 (29.7%) pharmacists who responded, 92 (19.1%) were eligible to participate, of whom 49 (53.3%) consented. Of those excluded, 193 (49.5%) were prescribing in secondary care and 171 (43.8%) were not prescribing. Between September 2009 and March 2010, 143 patients were recruited. Patient response rate was 73.4% (n = 105/143). Consultation settings were largely general practice (85.7%) or community pharmacy (11.4%). Attitudes were overwhelmingly positive with the vast majority agreeing/strongly agreeing that they were totally satisfied with their consultation and confident that their pharmacist prescribed as safely as their general practitioner (GP). Pharmacists were considered approachable and thorough, and most would recommend consulting a pharmacist prescriber. A slightly smaller majority would prefer to consult their GP if they thought their condition was getting worse and a small minority felt that there had been insufficient privacy and time for all their queries to be answered. CONCLUSIONS Patients were satisfied with, and confident in the skills of, pharmacist prescribers. However, the sample was small, may be biased and the findings lack generalisability.

Exploring pharmacists' perceptions of the feasibility and value of pharmacist prescribing of antimicrobials in secondary care in Scotland.

OBJECTIVES: The introduction of non-medical prescribing in the UK has provided opportunities and challenges for pharmacists to help ensure prudent use of antimicrobials. The objective of this research was to explore pharmacists' perceptions of the feasibility and value of pharmacist prescribing of antimicrobials in secondary care in Scotland. METHODS: Pharmacists' perceptions were explored using focus groups in five Scottish regions representing (a) urban and rural areas and (b) district general hospitals and large teaching centres. Senior hospital pharmacists, both prescribers and non-prescribers, working in specialities where antimicrobials are crucial to patient management, were invited to participate. A topic guide was developed to lead the discussions, which were audio-recorded and transcribed. The framework approach to data analysis was used. KEY FINDINGS: Six focus groups took place and some emerging themes and issues are presented. Pharmacists believed that the feasibility of antimicrobial prescribing is dependent upon the patient's clinical condition and the area of clinical care. They identified potential roles and opportunities for pharmacist prescribing of antimicrobials. Perceived benefits included giving patients quicker access to medicines, reducing risk of resistance and better application of evidence-based medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists feel they have a good knowledge base to prescribe and manage antimicrobial treatment, identifying possible opportunities for intervention. Roles within a multidisciplinary antimicrobial team need to be clearly defined.

'It's not my job. I'm the patient not the doctor': patient perspectives on medicines management in the treatment of schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES: Medicines management plays a key role in schizophrenia treatment. Objectives were to investigate the feasibility of undertaking in-depth research involving in-patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and to determine patients' views and experiences of medicines management. METHODS: Research was carried out in the forensic ward of a psychiatric hospital and two rehabilitation settings in north-east Scotland. A qualitative methodology was adopted incorporating semi-structured interviews. Full text transcripts were produced and analysed. RESULTS: Fifteen of 16 patients approached were willing to participate. Ages ranged from 27 to 70 years and they had been prescribed antipsychotics from six months to 27 years. Nearly everyone was aware of their medication regimen. Most relied on staff for information, but this was supplemented by learning from other patients' experiences. Most were happy to leave decisions to staff and few sought any role in shared decision making. CONCLUSION: The research demonstrated the feasibility of undertaking qualitative work with patients with schizophrenia. Findings indicated that it should not be assumed that all patients want to take responsibility for their medications. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Patients' reluctance to assume responsibility needs to be explored and patients' wishes taken into account when planning future medicine related education.

Cross sectional survey of the Scottish general public's awareness of, views on, and attitudes toward nonmedical prescribing.

BACKGROUND: Nonmedical (ie, nonphysician) prescribing is a key development in the UK that has brought about many changes in prescribing policy and practice. Systematic research into the views of the general public toward such developments is limited. OBJECTIVE: To determine the awareness of, views on, and attitudes of members of the Scottish general public toward nonmedical prescribing, with an emphasis on pharmacist prescribing. METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed in November 2006 to a random sample of 5000 members of the general public in Scotland aged 18 and over, obtained from the UK electoral roll. The questionnaire contained items on awareness of nonmedical prescribing, levels of comfort with specific health professionals, and attitudes toward pharmacist prescribing. RESULTS: Response rate was 37.1%. More than half of the individuals who responded were taking prescribed drugs. Nine hundred and seventy-eight (56.6%) were aware that trained health professionals could write prescriptions for medicines previously only prescribed by physicians. Awareness was associated with: increasing age (p < 0.001), having a health professional in their immediate family (p < 0.001), self-rated general health (p < 0.005), and a higher education level (p < 0.01). In logistic regression, all factors were retained as independent predictors of awareness (p < 0.001). Comfort levels for nonmedical prescribing were highest for pharmacists (median 4, IQR 3-5 [1 = low, 5 = high]), closely followed by nurses, and lowest for radiographers (median 2, IQR 1-4) (p < 0.001). While more than half of the respondents supported pharmacists having a prescribing role, fewer felt that pharmacists should prescribe the same range of drugs as physicians. There were concerns about lack of privacy in a pharmacy, despite acknowledging its enhanced convenience. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that more than half of the respondents were aware of nonmedical prescribing. A higher proportion was more comfortable with prescribing by pharmacists and nurses than with other healthcare professionals. Several issues relating to aspects of clinical governance were highlighted, specifically education and data handling.

Views of pharmacist prescribers, doctors and patients on pharmacist prescribing implementation.

AIM: The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of pharmacist supplementary prescribers, their linked independent prescribers and patients, across a range of settings, in Scotland, towards pharmacist prescribing. METHOD: Telephone interviews were conducted with nine pharmacist prescribers, eight linked independent prescribers (doctors) and 18 patients. The setting was primary and secondary care settings in six NHS Health Board areas in Scotland. KEY FINDINGS: In general, all stakeholders were supportive of pharmacists as supplementary prescribers, identifying benefits for patients and the wider health care team. Although patients raised no concerns, they had little idea of what to expect on their first visit, leading initially to feelings of apprehension. Pharmacists and doctors voiced concerns around a potential lack of continued funding, inadequate support networks and continuing professional development. Pharmacists were keen to undertake independent prescribing, although doctors were less supportive, citing issues around inadequate clinical examination skills. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists, doctors and patients were all supportive of developments in pharmacist supplementary prescribing, although doctors raised concerns around independent prescribing by pharmacists. The ability of pharmacists to demonstrate competence, to be aware of levels of competence and to identify learning needs requires further exploration.

Exploring patients' perspectives of pharmacist supplementary prescribing in Scotland.

AIM: The aim of this study was to explore patients' perspectives and experiences of pharmacist supplementary prescribing (SP) in Scotland. METHOD: A survey in primary and secondary care in Scotland. Pharmacist supplementary prescribers (n = 10) were purposively selected across Scotland. All pharmacists distributed questionnaires to 20 consecutive patients as they attended appointments during October to December 2006. Reminders were mailed to all 20 patients by each pharmacist 2 weeks after initial distribution. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The questionnaire contained items on: attitudes towards pharmacist SP derived from earlier qualitative research; consultation satisfaction derived from a validated scale developed initially for general practitioners, with the term 'doctor' being replaced by 'pharmacist prescriber'; and demographics. Closed and Likert scales were used as response options. RESULTS: One pharmacist withdrew. The patient response rate was 57.2% (103/180). The median age was 67 years (interquartile range 56.5-73 years), with 53.4% being female. Most (76, 73.8%) consulted with the pharmacist in a general practice setting. Patients reported positive consultation experiences with 89.3% agreeing/strongly agreeing that they were satisfied with the consultation, 78.7% thought the pharmacist told them everything about their treatment and 72.9% felt the pharmacist was interested in them as a person. Most patients were positive in their attitudes, agreeing that they would recommend a pharmacist prescriber to others and that they had trust in the pharmacist. However, 65% would prefer to consult a doctor. CONCLUSION: Most patient respondents were satisfied with, and had a positive attitude towards, pharmacist prescribing consultations. However, most patients would still elect to see a doctor given the choice.

Views, attitudes and self-assessed training needs of Scottish community pharmacists to public health practice and competence.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the education and training needs of community pharmacists to support the delivery of an expanded public health role. Setting Community pharmacy in Scotland. METHOD: Two focus groups of community pharmacists (n = 4 in each) in geographically distinct regions of Scotland explored issues of public health function, competencies and education and training. Findings from thematic analysis were used to develop a draft postal questionnaire. Following piloting, pharmacist managers from a random sample of 500 community pharmacies in Scotland were contacted by telephone to ascertain the number of pharmacists working in each pharmacy in the following 14-day period. A survey pack containing questionnaires for each identified pharmacist working in the study period was sent by post to the pharmacist manager in each pharmacy. The questionnaire contained items on: demographics; views and attitudes towards: public health; competencies for public health practitioners; and education and training needs. One postal reminder was sent 2 weeks later. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main themes identified from focus group discussions; questionnaire response rate; views and attitudes towards public health competencies and education and training. RESULTS: Four hundred and fifteen managers agreed to participate, providing 904 potential participants. The response rate was 25% (223/904). Most (n = 179, 80%) were aware of the term 'pharmaceutical public health'. While a majority saw the importance of public health to their practice (n = 177, 79%) agreeing/strongly agreeing, they were less comfortable with the term 'specialist'. Respondents viewed competencies relating to health promotion (n = 192, 86%) more relevant than surveillance (n = 70, 31%), risk management (n = 29, 13%) and strategic developments (n = 12, 5%). Responses indicated a desire for education and training with more than half (n = 121, 54%) agreeing/strongly agreeing that they had a need now, with 69% (n = 153) expressing a future need. CONCLUSION: Results should be interpreted with caution due to the response rate. However, this research highlights the self assessed gap in competence related to pharmaceutical public health for community pharmacists in Scotland.

A systematic review of interventions to improve medication taking in elderly patients prescribed multiple medications.

A range of behavioural, educational and provider-focused strategies have been tested, individually or in combination, for improving medication adherence. The results of various interventions in different patient groups, including the elderly, have been subjected to systematic reviews and meta-analyses, but because most studies have focused on improving adherence to one drug or drug group, they may have limited applicability to the general elderly population who more commonly use multiple medications for multiple co-morbidities.A systematic review of controlled studies aimed at improving adherence in community-living elderly patients prescribed at least three, or a mean/median of four or more, long-term medications was undertaken. Only studies which included a minimum of 60 patients in each group, followed patients for >or=4 weeks after intervention, and measured adherence to all medications at baseline and at the conclusion of the study were considered for inclusion in the review. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. All eight studies used verbal and/or written medication information in combination with behavioural strategies with or without provider-focused strategies. Pharmaceutical care was the theoretical framework of the interventions used in the majority of the studies. Only four studies demonstrated a significant improvement in adherence as a result of the interventions. The relative change in adherence in the intervention groups was highly variable, ranging from -13% to +55.5% (mean +11.4%). Regular scheduled patient follow-up along with a multi-compartment dose administration aid was an effective strategy for maintaining adherence in one study, while group education combined with individualized medication cards was successful in another study. Medication review by pharmacists with a focus on regimen simplification was found to be effective in two studies.Overall, as a result of inconsistent methodology and findings across the eight studies, we were unable to draw firm conclusions in favour of any particular intervention. Innovative strategies for enhancing medication adherence in the elderly and reliable measures of adherence are needed. Until further evidence from single-intervention strategies becomes available, combinations of educational and behavioural strategies should be used to improve medication adherence in the elderly.

Developing consensus around the pharmaceutical public health competencies for community pharmacists in Scotland.

OBJECTIVE: The new community pharmacy contract in Scotland will formalise the role of pharmacists in delivering public health services. To facilitate assessment of education and training needs it is necessary to define the relevant public health competencies for community pharmacists. The objective of this research was to define and develop consensus around such competencies. METHODS: The "Skills for Health National Occupational Standards for Public Health Practitioners" was used to define an initial set of competencies. A two stage Delphi technique was undertaken to develop consensus. An expert panel, representing public health and pharmacy stakeholders, rated their agreement with the importance of each competency, with the agreement level set at 90%. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Level of agreement (%) with each public health competency; those competencies achieving more than 90% agreement with importance for community pharmacy practice. RESULTS: Ten organisations (83% of those invited) and a total of 30 members (88%) agreed to take part in the process. In round 1 of the Delphi, responses were received from 25 (83%) individuals and 22 (73%) in round 2, with consensus being achieved for 25/68 (37%) competencies in round 1 and a further 8/68 (12%) in round 2. CONCLUSION: Public health competencies for community pharmacists achieving consensus predominantly focused on health improvement activities at individual and local community levels and ethical management of self rather than those relating to surveillance and assessment and strategic development. There is a need to research community pharmacists' views of these competencies and to systematically assess their education and training needs.

Views of pharmacists and mentors on experiential learning for pharmacist supplementary prescribing trainees.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the views and experiences of pharmacists and their mentoring designated medical practitioners (DMPs) about the 'period of learning in practice' (PLP) as part of supplementary prescribing (SP) training. METHOD: Two focus groups (n = 5 and 7) of SP pharmacists were organised in Scotland. The experiences and views of DMPs (n = 13) were explored using one-to-one telephone interviews. The focus groups and interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using the framework approach. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Views and experiences of pharmacists and DMPs about the PLP. RESULTS: Planning the PLP in consultation with the DMP was found to be crucial for an optimal learning experience. Pharmacists who did not have a close working relationship with the medical team had difficulties in identifying a DMP and organising their PLP. Participants stressed the importance of focusing on and achieving the core competencies for prescribers during the PLP. Input from doctors involved in the training of others, review of consultation videos, and formal independent assessment including clinical assessment at the end of the PLP might improve the quality of the PLP. Forums for discussing experiences during the PLP and gathering information might be valuable. CONCLUSION: Our findings have implications for prescribing training for pharmacists in the future. The PLP should focus on core competencies with input from doctors involved in the training of others and have a formal assessment of consultation skills. Support for pharmacists in organising the PLP and forums for discussing experiences during the PLP would be valuable.

Experiential learning as part of pharmacist supplementary prescribing training: feedback from trainees and their mentors.

BACKGROUND: A period of learning in practice (PLP) is an integral part of supplementary prescribing training for pharmacists in Great Britain. During the PLP, a designated medical practitioner (DMP) supervises and supports the trainee to develop competence in prescribing. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the views and experiences of supplementary prescribing pharmacists and DMPs regarding the PLP and identify their perceived support needs during the PLP. METHODS: Prepiloted questionnaires were mailed in September 2006 to all pharmacists who had started their supplementary prescribing training at The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, Scotland (n = 242) and their DMPs (n = 232). Nonrespondents were sent up to 2 reminders. Responses were analyzed using descriptive and comparative statistics; responses to open questions were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Responses were received from 186 (76.9%) pharmacists and 144 (62.1%) DMPs. Just over half of the pharmacists agreed/strongly agreed that they knew what was expected of them and their DMPs during the PLP, but less than half agreed/strongly agreed that it was important to communicate with pharmacist colleagues in the prescribing course. One hundred twelve (60.2%) pharmacists had their consultation skills reviewed by their DMPs during the PLP. Opportunities for professional development and teamwork were regarded as major positive experiences by both pharmacists and DMPs. Organizational, attitudinal, and time barriers were also reported. There was considerable interest among both pharmacists and DMPs for an Internet-based support network during the PLP. CONCLUSIONS: Information on the roles and responsibilities of pharmacists and DMPs during the PLP should be enhanced. The Internet could be a useful medium for communication during the PLP. Input from a multidisciplinary team of healthcare professionals and review of consultation videos could further enhance the PLP experience.

Prescription medications: beliefs, experiences, behavior, and adherence of sheltered housing residents.

BACKGROUND: Data on medication utilization among residents of sheltered housing complexes (SHCs) are limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent of nonadherence to prescribed medications among residents of SHCs and identify factors associated with nonadherence. METHODS: A 58 item, pre-piloted questionnaire with validated items for patient self-assessment of medication risk; adherence; disability; health beliefs, experiences, and behavior; and general items on demographics, health, and medication use was mailed to 1137 SHC residents in Aberdeen, Scotland. Predictors of nonadherence (Morisky score >0) were identified using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 695 (61.1%) respondents, 645 (mean +/- SD age, 78.2 +/- 7.8 y) reported using prescribed drugs. Nonadherence was reported by 176 of 627 (28.1%) residents. The predictors of nonadherence were: disagreeing with the statement, "I ensure I have enough medicines so that I don't run out" (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77), agreeing with the statements, "I make changes in the recommended management to suit my lifestyle" (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.60) and "I get confused about my medicines" (OR 1.39; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.77), younger age (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.94 to 0.99), not getting help from someone to use the medications correctly (OR 2.20; 95% CI 1.21 to 3.99), and agreeing with the statement, "I am concerned about the side effects from my medicines" (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.63). CONCLUSIONS: Over one-quarter of SHC residents were found to be nonadherent to prescribed drugs. Risk factors for nonadherence include younger age, confusion about drugs, lack of support for drug supply and administration, interference of treatment recommendations with lifestyle, and a perceived view of risks outweighing benefits in using recommended drug therapy.

Supplementary prescribing: early experiences of pharmacists in Great Britain.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists in Great Britain can undertake supplementary prescribing (SP) after training at a higher education institution and completing a "period of learning in practice" in accordance with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) curriculum. OBJECTIVE: To explore SP pharmacists' early experiences of prescribing and their perceptions of the prescribing course. METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed to all RPSGB prescribers (N = 518, on June 1, 2005; 30 used in pilot questionnaire). Predictors of pharmacists starting to practice SP were identified in univariate analysis, and significant variables were further tested in multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The respondents (n = 401; 82.2%) were mainly female (270; 67.3%), had more than 20 years' experience as a pharmacist (123; 30.7%), worked in hospital settings (160; 39.9%), and focused on cardiovascular conditions (143; 35.7%) during their period of learning in practice. The median course satisfaction score, on a scale of 3 to 15 (lowest to highest), was 10. Practicing SP was self-reported by 195 (48.6%) respondents, 154 (79%) of whom had written a prescription. Ninety (58.4%) of the first prescriptions were written in primary care settings. Better patient management was regarded as the major benefit by 139 (71.3%) of those engaged in SP, while funding issues were identified by 71 (36.4%) as major barriers in implementing the practice. Lack of organizational recognition of SP was the main reason given (37; 18%) for those not commencing the practice. Independent predictors of those practicing SP included a longer time since registering as prescriber (p < 0.001); confidence of pharmacists in their prescribing abilities (p < 0.001); practicing in a setting other than community pharmacy (p = 0.001); and training in cardiovascular conditions or multiple conditions during the period of learning in practice (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists have made progress in implementing SP, which is perceived by pharmacist prescribers as beneficial for both patients and themselves. Pharmacists need more support in terms of infrastructure and integration into the healthcare team to overcome some of the barriers to implementing SP.