Attitudes, barriers, and facilitators toward tools supporting appropriate prescribing among healthcare professionals: a cross-sectional study.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Monia Donati, Valentina Giunchi, Giulia Grillini, Marco Domenicali, Maria Lia Lunardelli, Veronica Pasini, Susy Milandri, Monica Mussoni, Fabio Pieraccini, Elisa Sangiorgi, Emanuel Raschi, Valentina Colonnello, Carlotta Lunghi, Elisabetta Poluzzi
{"title":"Attitudes, barriers, and facilitators toward tools supporting appropriate prescribing among healthcare professionals: a cross-sectional study.","authors":"Monia Donati, Valentina Giunchi, Giulia Grillini, Marco Domenicali, Maria Lia Lunardelli, Veronica Pasini, Susy Milandri, Monica Mussoni, Fabio Pieraccini, Elisa Sangiorgi, Emanuel Raschi, Valentina Colonnello, Carlotta Lunghi, Elisabetta Poluzzi","doi":"10.1007/s00228-025-03852-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Potentially inappropriate prescriptions are associated with an increased risk of drug-drug interactions, adverse events, and unfavorable clinical outcomes, especially in older adults. Although different tools to improve appropriate prescribing have been developed to support healthcare professionals, their application and the barriers to their use remain insufficiently explored. This study aimed to assess Italian healthcare professionals' knowledge of these tools and identify obstacles to their adoption.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study used a purposefully designed questionnaire to assess knowledge, adoption, and barriers related to appropriateness tools. The tools included were identified through a literature review and subsequently refined via expert consensus. Open-ended responses were analyzed using a conventional content analysis approach, and the analyses focused on differences across professional groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The survey collected 657 responses from pharmacists (35%), nurses (26%), general practitioners (22%), geriatricians/internists (9%), and other physicians (8%). The Beers and STOPP/START criteria were used by 38% and 34% of participants, respectively, with geriatricians and other physicians being the primary users. Additionally, 34% of participants reported using specific software integrated into their institutional computer systems. Among 294 respondents identifying barriers to appropriate prescribing, the most common were lack of time (14%), lack of knowledge (10%), and accessibility/costs of digital tools (8%). Key facilitators included specific training (38%), integrated software/apps (29%), and more time with patients (11%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The adoption of tools supporting appropriate prescribing remains limited among healthcare professionals in Italy, with significant differences among professionals. Policymakers and healthcare institutions should focus on education, interprofessional collaboration, and user-friendly digital solutions to improve prescribing process and patient safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":11857,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology","volume":" ","pages":"1155-1165"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12279595/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-025-03852-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Potentially inappropriate prescriptions are associated with an increased risk of drug-drug interactions, adverse events, and unfavorable clinical outcomes, especially in older adults. Although different tools to improve appropriate prescribing have been developed to support healthcare professionals, their application and the barriers to their use remain insufficiently explored. This study aimed to assess Italian healthcare professionals' knowledge of these tools and identify obstacles to their adoption.

Methods: The study used a purposefully designed questionnaire to assess knowledge, adoption, and barriers related to appropriateness tools. The tools included were identified through a literature review and subsequently refined via expert consensus. Open-ended responses were analyzed using a conventional content analysis approach, and the analyses focused on differences across professional groups.

Results: The survey collected 657 responses from pharmacists (35%), nurses (26%), general practitioners (22%), geriatricians/internists (9%), and other physicians (8%). The Beers and STOPP/START criteria were used by 38% and 34% of participants, respectively, with geriatricians and other physicians being the primary users. Additionally, 34% of participants reported using specific software integrated into their institutional computer systems. Among 294 respondents identifying barriers to appropriate prescribing, the most common were lack of time (14%), lack of knowledge (10%), and accessibility/costs of digital tools (8%). Key facilitators included specific training (38%), integrated software/apps (29%), and more time with patients (11%).

Conclusions: The adoption of tools supporting appropriate prescribing remains limited among healthcare professionals in Italy, with significant differences among professionals. Policymakers and healthcare institutions should focus on education, interprofessional collaboration, and user-friendly digital solutions to improve prescribing process and patient safety.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

医疗保健专业人员对支持适当处方的工具的态度、障碍和促进因素:一项横断面研究。
目的:潜在的不当处方与药物相互作用、不良事件和不利临床结果的风险增加有关,特别是在老年人中。虽然已经开发了不同的工具来改善适当的处方,以支持医疗保健专业人员,但它们的应用和使用障碍仍然没有得到充分的探索。本研究旨在评估意大利医疗保健专业人员对这些工具的了解,并确定采用这些工具的障碍。方法:本研究采用一份有目的设计的问卷来评估与适当工具相关的知识、采用和障碍。所包括的工具是通过文献综述确定的,随后通过专家共识加以完善。开放式回答使用传统的内容分析方法进行分析,分析的重点是专业群体之间的差异。结果:调查收集了657份来自药师(35%)、护士(26%)、全科医生(22%)、老年病医生/内科医生(9%)和其他医生(8%)的回复。比尔斯标准和STOPP/START标准分别被38%和34%的参与者使用,老年病医生和其他医生是主要使用者。此外,34%的参与者报告使用了集成到其机构计算机系统中的特定软件。在294名受访者中,最常见的障碍是缺乏时间(14%)、缺乏知识(10%)和数字工具的可及性/成本(8%)。主要的促进因素包括专门的培训(38%)、集成的软件/应用程序(29%)和更多的时间与患者相处(11%)。结论:在意大利的医疗保健专业人员中,支持适当处方的工具的采用仍然有限,专业人员之间存在显著差异。政策制定者和医疗机构应将重点放在教育、跨专业协作和用户友好的数字解决方案上,以改善处方流程和患者安全。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
170
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology publishes original papers on all aspects of clinical pharmacology and drug therapy in humans. Manuscripts are welcomed on the following topics: therapeutic trials, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, pharmacogenetics, drug metabolism, adverse drug reactions, drug interactions, all aspects of drug development, development relating to teaching in clinical pharmacology, pharmacoepidemiology, and matters relating to the rational prescribing and safe use of drugs. Methodological contributions relevant to these topics are also welcomed. Data from animal experiments are accepted only in the context of original data in man reported in the same paper. EJCP will only consider manuscripts describing the frequency of allelic variants in different populations if this information is linked to functional data or new interesting variants. Highly relevant differences in frequency with a major impact in drug therapy for the respective population may be submitted as a letter to the editor. Straightforward phase I pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic studies as parts of new drug development will only be considered for publication if the paper involves -a compound that is interesting and new in some basic or fundamental way, or -methods that are original in some basic sense, or -a highly unexpected outcome, or -conclusions that are scientifically novel in some basic or fundamental sense.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信