Widening consumer access to medicines: a comparison of prescription to non-prescription medicine switch in Australia and New Zealand

Health information communication technology evaluation frameworks for pharmacist prescribing: A systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

Information communication technology (ICT) is instrumental in pharmacists' current practice and emerging roles. One such role is prescribing, which requires the use of clinical guidelines and documentation of decision-making, commonly via ICT. Development and refinement of ICT should be guided by evaluation frameworks that describe or measure features of ICT and its implementation. In the context of pharmacist prescribing, these evaluation frameworks should be specific to health stakeholders and the pharmacy setting.

OBJECTIVES

To identify ICT evaluation frameworks from health-related literature and review frameworks relevant to the development, implementation, and evaluation of pharmacist prescribing.

METHODS

A database search of CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline (Ovid), ProQuest, Scopus, Web of Science and grey literature was conducted, using combinations of keywords relating to 'ICT', 'utilization', 'usability', and 'evaluation framework'. Abstracts and titles were screened according to inclusion criteria. Identified evaluation frameworks were critiqued for relevance to pharmacy practice.

RESULTS

Twenty-two articles were identified, describing the development or application of 20 evaluation frameworks. None of the frameworks was developed specifically for pharmacy practice. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), describing use behavior, behavior intention, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use, was the most widely utilized framework. The Information System Success (ISS) and Human-Organization and Technology Fit (HOT-fit) are notable evaluation frameworks that address user and organizational influences in health ICT utility, and factors of both can address the limitation of TAM.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings call for development of an agile evaluation framework for the system under review; however, this can prove difficult due to the heterogenicity and complexity of the healthcare system, particularly contemporary pharmacy practice. While the TAM appears useful to evaluate user attitudes and intentions towards ICT, its relevance to ICT in contemporary community pharmacy practice requires exploration.

Māori, pharmacists, and medicines adherence – A mixed methods study exploring indigenous experiences of taking medicines ‘as prescribed’ and mechanisms of support

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

•

Māori experiences of medicines adherence are diverse.

•

Pharmacists can support Māori medicines adherence in a variety of practical ways.

•

Indigenous-led research promotes discourse reflective of Indigenous experience.

Application of an economic evaluation approach to making regulatory decisions regarding access to medicines: advantages, challenges and recommendations

Initially patients require a prescription to access most new medicines. Some medicines may later be reclassified, allowing patients to access them without a prescription. Currently, Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration guidelines regarding reclassification decisions focus on patient risk rather than on potential benefits to patient health and the healthcare system. We conducted two extensive case studies demonstrating an economic evaluation approach to medicine reclassification in Australia, which were presented at various conferences and to key stakeholders. This article discusses the advantages and challenges of using an economic evaluation approach to inform medicine reclassification decisions. Advantages identified include systematically and transparently synthesising evidence from multiple sources; predicting the overall expected impact of reclassification on health outcomes and costs before it occurs; considering a broader range of risks and benefits; aggregation of health impacts into a single measure (quality-adjusted life years); identification of drivers of uncertainty; insight into the effects of different regulatory decisions; and improved consistency of evidence. Challenges include data availability and quality, estimating behavioural changes, model complexity, the lack of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold, and funding of economic analyses. We recommend that regulatory decision makers use an economic evaluation approach to help inform reclassification decisions, although economic evaluation results should be considered as part of the broader body of evidence. Ultimately, the use of an economic evaluation approach will contribute to helping decision makers maximise population health outcomes in an efficient way.What is known about the topic?In the past, decisions regarding medicine reclassification have generally been made using a deliberative approach focusing on patient risk. However, there are also potential benefits to patient health and effects on the healthcare system. Increasing awareness of these benefits have led to the development of alternative approaches to decision making, including an economic evaluation approach.What does this paper add?This article discusses the advantages and challenges of using an economic evaluation approach to inform medicine reclassification decisions compared with alternative approaches.What are the implications for practitioners?Economic evaluation results should be considered as part of the broader body of evidence regarding the types of health impacts, the extent of the available evidence, who will be affected, and the role of medical practitioners and pharmacists in mitigating any risks. However, awareness of the advantages and challenges of this approach in advance will help mitigate some of the challenges and increase acceptance of the economic evaluation results by decision makers and stakeholders.

Why are self-medication opportunities limited in Austria? An interview study and comparison with other countries

Background

Austria has high health resource use compared to similar countries. Reclassifying (switching) medicines from prescription to non-prescription can reduce pressure on health resources and aid timely access to medicines. Since Austria is less progressive in this area than many other countries, this research aimed to elucidate enablers and barriers to it reclassifying medicines and make recommendations for change in the context of similar research conducted elsewhere.

Methods

Qualitative research using a heuristic approach was conducted in Austria in 2018. Informed by their own “insider” and “outsider” knowledge, the authors identified themes from personal interviews with 24 participants, including reclassification committee members, government officials and stakeholders, before comparing these themes with earlier research findings.

Results

Significant barriers to reclassification included committee conservatism, minimal political support, medical negativity and few company applications. Insufficient transparency about committee decisions, expectations of adverse committee decisions and a limited market discouraged company applications. Austria’s ‘social partnership’ arrangement and consensus decision making aided a conservative approach, but the regulator and an alternative non-committee switch process were enabling. Pharmacy showed mixed interest in reclassification. Suggested improvements include increasing transparency, committee composition changes, encouraging a more evidence-based approach by the committee, more pharmacy undergraduate clinical training, and companies using scientific advisory meetings and submitting high quality applications.

Conclusion

Removing barriers to reclassification would facilitate non-prescription availability of medicines and encourage self-care, and could reduce pressure on healthcare resources.

Prescription and Non-Prescription Drug Classification Systems Across Countries: Lessons Learned for Thailand

Purpose

The drug classification system, as prescription or non-prescription drug category, has been utilized as a regulatory strategy to ensure patient safety. In Thailand, the same system has been used for decades, though the drug classification criteria were updated to accommodate drug re-classification in 2016. These new criteria, however, have not been applied retroactively. Inconsistency in drug classification has been observed leading to concerns regarding the drug classification system. This has prompted the need for a review of the drug classification system in Thailand. This study aims to explore Thailand and other selected countries’ regulatory management regarding the drug classification system, drug classification criteria, and drug classification itself.

Methods

The drug classification systems of the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Canada were selected to study alongside Thailand’s system. The regulatory review was conducted through each country’s drug regulatory agency website and available published research. Complementary interviews with drug regulatory authorities were conducted when written documentation was unclear and had limited access. Fifty-two common drugs were selected to compare their actual classifications across the different countries.

Results

All selected countries classified drugs into two major groups: prescription drugs and non-prescription drugs. The studied countries further sub-classified non-prescription drugs into 1–4 categories. Principles of drug classification criteria among countries are similar; they comprised of three themes: disease characteristics, drug safety profile, and other drug characteristics. Actual drug classification of antibiotics, dyslipidemia treatments, and hypertension treatments in Thailand are notedly different from other countries. Furthermore, 77.4% of drugs studied in Thailand fall into the behind-the-counter (dangerous) drug category, which varied from antihistamines to antibiotics, dyslipidemia treatments, and vaccines.

Conclusion

Thailand’s drug classification criteria are comparable with other nations; however, there is a need to review drug classification statuses as many drugs have been classified into improper drug categories.

Australian pharmacists: ready for increased non-prescription medicines reclassification

OBJECTIVES

Reclassification of medicines from prescription to non-prescription increases timely access to treatment, promotes self-management of minor ailments and relieves healthcare system burden. Previous research identified that Australia lagged behind the United Kingdom and New Zealand in medicines reclassification. This study aimed to identify Australian pharmacists' opinions on the current state of medicines reclassification; the prescription medicines consumers requested without prescription; the medicines pharmacists believed should and should not be considered for reclassification; and perceived barriers to reclassification.

METHODS

A 2016 national online survey that sought pharmacists' opinions on the state of reclassification, perceived barriers to reclassification and readiness of the profession for further reclassification. Pharmacists' comments were invited through open-ended questions.

KEY FINDINGS

Two hundred and thirty-five valid surveys were completed. Respondents practised in community, hospital, consultant and academic contexts, and the majority were female (58.7%, n = 138). More than two thirds (70.66%, n = 166) of pharmacists reported receiving daily or weekly requests for non-prescription access to prescription medicines. The majority of pharmacists (71.7%) agreed that the Australian pharmacy profession is ready for further medicines reclassification, guided by patient safety, harm minimisation and medication continuance. The most prominent barrier to further reclassification was opposition from other healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

Australian pharmacists believe that their profession has the capacity to safely and effectively manage a wider range of non-prescription medicines through increased reclassification in the contexts of patient safety and risk mitigation. This study has contributed to the global conversation on non-prescription medicines access, providing momentum for practice and policy change.

Is Reclassification of the Oral Contraceptive Pill from Prescription to Pharmacist-Only Cost Effective? Application of an Economic Evaluation Approach to Regulatory Decisions

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Unplanned pregnancies can lead to poorer maternal and child health outcomes. The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration committee rejected reclassifying a range of oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) from prescription to pharmacist-only medicines in 2015, mainly based on safety concerns. Improving access to OCPs may encourage some women to use contraceptives or switch from other contraceptive methods. However, some adverse events may increase and some women may stop using condoms, increasing their risk of sexually transmitted infections. This study aimed to estimate the cost effectiveness of reclassifying OCPs from prescription to pharmacist-only.

PERSPECTIVE

Healthcare system.

SETTING

Australian primary care.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to synthesise data from a variety of sources. The model included all Australian women aged 15-49 years (N = 5,644,701). The time horizon was 35 years. Contraceptive use before reclassification was estimated using data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey, while survey data informed use after reclassification. Health outcomes included pregnancies, pregnancy outcomes (live birth, miscarriage, stillbirth, ectopic pregnancy and abortion), sexually transmitted infections, adverse events (venous thromboembolism, depression, myocardial infarction and stroke), ovarian cancer cases and quality-adjusted life-years. Costs included those related to general practitioner and specialist consultations, contraceptives and other medicines, pharmacist time, hospitalisations and adverse events. All costs were reported in 2016 Australian Dollars. A 5% discount rate was applied to health outcomes and costs.

RESULTS

Reclassifying OCPs resulted in 85.70 million quality-adjusted life-years experienced and costs of $46,910.14 million over 35 years, vs. 85.68 million quality-adjusted life-years experienced and costs of $50,274.95 million with OCPs remaining prescription-only. Thus, reclassifying OCPs was more effective and cost saving. However, a sensitivity analysis found that more research on the probability of pregnancy in women not using contraception and not trying to conceive is needed.

CONCLUSION

Reclassifying OCPs is likely to be considered cost effective by Australian decision makers.

Analysing the landscape for prescription to non-prescription reclassification (switch) in Germany: an interview study of committee members and stakeholders

Background

Non-prescription medicines are increasingly used in Germany, aided by prescription-to-non-prescription reclassification (or switch). This study aimed to examine the barriers and enablers to reclassification of medicines in Germany and provide recommendations for change.

Methods

Face-to-face conversational interviews with purposively selected key informants in Germany were conducted in 2017 by a researcher informed in the area. Interviews were transcribed, coded in NVIVO and systematically analysed using a framework approach.

Results

Twenty-four interviews were conducted with 32 participants including members of the committee considering reclassifications, and representatives from government, industry, health insurance, academia, and pharmacy, medical, and patients’ organisations.

A range of enablers and barriers emerged that influence reclassification including effects on the committee and process, or the desire of pharmaceutical companies to pursue reclassifications. Enabling market factors included the large population and a culture of self-medication. Enabling health system factors include the pharmacy-only category. Some pharmacy factors appeared enabling (e.g. a positive experience after reclassifying emergency contraception) while others appeared to hinder reclassification (e.g. insufficient pharmacy practice research). Some medical factors were enabling (e.g. reported waiting times) and others limited reclassification (e.g. opposition to some reclassifications). Some committee and government openness to reclassification and self-medication reportedly enabled reclassification, while conservatism was considered a barrier, particularly for classifications with special conditions for supply such as initial doctor diagnosis or other complexities. Some improvements to the committee constitution and considerations were recommended. Some participants found the reclassification process after the committee recommendation opaque, with opportunity for delays and political interference.

Industry factors included both enablers such as capability in reclassification, and barriers, such as a perceived low market potential of some reclassifications, and doubt that some candidates would be approved.

A need for more data emerged strongly, both pre-reclassification in applications, and post-reclassification.

Many participants saw merit with reclassification in non-traditional areas such as hypertension, diabetes and oral contraception.

Conclusions

Many factors influence reclassification in Germany. Recommended improvements included aspects of the process and committee consideration, and more data collection. Sufficient market exclusivity linked to data collection could aid the generation of evidence to aid committee considerations and encourage more applications of high quality.

Medicines reclassification from a pharmaceutical industry perspective: An international qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Widening access to medicines through reclassification ('switching') of medicines from prescription to non-prescription is an international trend generally welcomed by community pharmacists. Research has focused on scheduling and committee deliberations affecting reclassification, rather than industry aspects, despite industry's role in driving reclassifications. The research aimed to identify how pharmaceutical industry and product-related factors influence reclassification, and to explore stakeholder acceptability of government or third-party driven reclassifications.

METHODS

Sixty-five in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 80 key informants (including representatives from regulatory bodies, industry, pharmacy and medicine) in developed countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. The questions explored barriers and enablers to reclassification at the local (micro-), regional (meso-) and global (macro-) levels. Analysis of transcribed interviews entailed descriptive and thematic approaches.

RESULTS

Pharmaceutical industry decisions to drive medicine reclassification reflect characteristics of the company, product, and external environment at all levels. For the company, financial factors, company focus (e.g. on prescription business versus non-prescription business), and capability in non-prescription medicines and reclassification were common influences. Products with significant non-prescription market potential and a well-known prescription medicine brand name most suited reclassification, usually near patent expiry. Barriers included immediate generic entry post-reclassification, and a short-term profitability and/or prescription business focus. Some countries allow government or a third-party (including pharmacy) to drive reclassifications, with examples of successful reclassifications ensuing. Some industry and other participants held concerns about this practice, particularly in the United States. Concerns included insufficient resourcing, and the pharmaceutical company's business, potentially encouraging product withdrawal or legal challenge.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first to explore both pharmaceutical industry factors affecting reclassification and acceptability of alternate drivers of reclassification. Factors beyond clinical safety and efficacy and the local reclassification environment can influence reclassification. Pharmacy-driven reclassification might be one alternative.

Using machine learning to investigate self-medication purchasing in England via high street retailer loyalty card data

The availability alongside growing awareness of medicine has led to increased self-treatment of minor ailments. Self-medication is where one ‘self’ diagnoses and prescribes over the counter medicines for treatment. The self-care movement has important policy implications, perceived to relieve the National Health Service (NHS) burden, increasing patient subsistence and freeing resources for more serious ailments. However, there has been little research exploring how self-medication behaviours vary between population groups due to a lack of available data. The aim of our study is to evaluate how high street retailer loyalty card data can help inform our understanding of how individuals self-medicate in England. Transaction level loyalty card data was acquired from a national high street retailer for England for 2012–2014. We calculated the proportion of loyalty card customers (n ~ 10 million) within Lower Super Output Areas who purchased the following medicines: ‘coughs and colds’, ‘Hayfever’, ‘pain relief’ and ‘sun preps’. Machine learning was used to explore how 50 sociodemographic and health accessibility features were associated towards explaining purchasing of each product group. Random Forests are used as a baseline and Gradient Boosting as our final model. Our results showed that pain relief was the most common medicine purchased. There was little difference in purchasing behaviours by sex other than for sun preps. The gradient boosting models demonstrated that socioeconomic status of areas, as well as air pollution, were important predictors of each medicine. Our study adds to the self-medication literature through demonstrating the usefulness of loyalty card records for producing insights about how self-medication varies at the national level. Big data offer novel insights that add to and address issues that traditional studies are unable to consider. New forms of data through data linkage may offer opportunities to improve current public health decision making surrounding at risk population groups within self-medication behaviours.

Australian pharmacy perspectives on increasing access to medicines through reclassification

OBJECTIVES

Availability of medicines without prescription can increase consumers' timely access to treatment and promote self-management of minor ailments and adherence to long-term medications. Globally, access to relevant medicines has improved through increased reclassification of medicines from prescription to non-prescription availability. However, Australian reclassification lags behind countries with comparable health systems, and the factors influencing this are poorly understood.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted during May 2015 to explore the perspectives of Australian pharmacists and support staff on future reclassification. Interview responses were transcribed verbatim, and the data were analysed thematically, primarily informed by the general inductive approach.

RESULTS

Participants identified a broad range of medicines as candidates for future reclassification by applying risk versus benefit judgements, assessing any medicines with potential for misuse and hazardous medicines as unsuitable. Key drivers for change in classification were underpinned by participants' desire to support consumers' management of minor ailments and adherence for those on long-term therapy. Barriers to reclassification were identified by pharmacy staff as internal, negatively impacting pharmacists' readiness for reclassification and external, negatively impacting the overall progress of change.

CONCLUSIONS

While the research provided valuable insights to inform the ongoing discussion on future reclassification, a larger, more representative sample is needed to confirm these findings.

Double-Dosing and Other Dangers with Non-Prescription Medicines: Pharmacists' Views and Experiences

The aim of this paper was to explore pharmacists' views on reclassifications from pharmacy-only to general sales and their experiences with the supply of these medicines, in addition to pharmacists' views on the reclassification of the shingles vaccine and sildenafil to be available through 'accredited' pharmacists. New Zealand community pharmacists were surveyed in 2013 with a written questionnaire of six Likert-style or open-ended questions sent to Pharmacy Guild member pharmacies. The analysis involved descriptive statistics. Responses were received from 246 pharmacies. Two thirds of pharmacists supported the reclassification of the shingles vaccine and sildenafil, although 14% disagreed with the sildenafil reclassification. Over 90% of pharmacists disagreed with the reclassification of paracetamol and ibuprofen liquids, omeprazole, naproxen, and oxymetazoline from pharmacy-only medicine to general sales. This opinion was strongest for omeprazole. With liquid paracetamol and ibuprofen, pharmacists described consumer confusion with dosing, and particularly potentially doubling-up on liquid analgesics/antipyretics including using both prescription and non-prescription variants. Many reported giving safety advice frequently. Anti-inflammatories and omeprazole were also subject to potential double-dosing, as well as requests by consumers with contraindications, precautions, and drug interactions, and for inappropriate indications. Pharmacists described various interventions, including some that were potentially life-saving. Pharmacy availability of medicines provides the potential for intervention that would not happen in a general sales environment.

Patient access to medicines in two countries with similar health systems and differing medicines policies: Implications from a comprehensive literature review

BACKGROUND

Countries with similar health systems but different medicines policies might result in substantial medicines usage differences and resultant outcomes. The literature is sparse in this area.

OBJECTIVE

To review pharmaceutical policy research in New Zealand and Australia and discuss differences between the two countries and the impact these differences may have on subsequent medicine access.

METHODS

A review of the literature (2008-2016) was performed to identify relevant, peer-reviewed articles. Systematic searches were conducted across the six databases MEDLINE, PubMed, Science Direct, Springer Links, Scopus and Google Scholar. A further search of journals of high relevance was also conducted. Using content analysis, a narrative synthesis of pharmaceutical policy research influencing access to medicines in Australia and New Zealand was conducted. The results were critically assessed in the context of policy material available via grey literature from the respective countries.

RESULTS

Key elements regarding pharmaceutical policy were identified from the 35 research papers identified for this review. Through a content analysis, three broad categories of pharmaceutical policy were found, which potentially could influence patient access to medicines in each country; the national health system, pricing and reimbursement. Within these three categories, 9 subcategories were identified: national health policy, pharmacy system, marketing authorization and regulation, prescription to non-prescription medicine switch, orphan drug policies, generic medicine substitution, national pharmaceutical schedule and health technology assessment, patient co-payment and managed entry agreements.

CONCLUSIONS

This review systematically evaluated the current literature and identified key areas of difference in policy between Australia and NZ. Australia appears to cover and reimburse a greater number of medicines, while New Zealand achieves much lower prices for medicines than their Australian counterparts and has been more successful in controlling national pharmaceutical expenditure. Delays in patient access to new therapies in New Zealand have considerable implications for overall patient access to medicines; however, higher patient co-payments and relative pharmaceutical expenditure in Australia and its effect upon patient access to medicines must also be considered.

Why does increasing public access to medicines differ between countries? Qualitative comparison of nine countries

Objective

To identify factors associated with differences between developed countries in reclassifying (switching) medicines from prescription to non-prescription availability.

Methods

Cross-national qualitative research using a heuristic approach in the US, UK, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, supplemented by data from Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands and Singapore. In-depth interviews with 80 key informants (65 interviews) explored and compared factors in terms of barriers and enablers to reclassification of medicines in each country. Document analysis supplemented interview data.

Results

Each country had a unique mix of enablers and barriers to reclassification. Enablers included government policy (particularly in UK), pharmacist-only scheduling (particularly in Australia and New Zealand) and large market size (particularly in the US and Europe). Local barriers included limited market potential in small countries, the cost of a reclassification (particularly in the US), competition from distributors of generic medicines, committee inconsistency and consumer behavior. UK had more enablers than barriers, whereas in Australia the opposite was true.

Conclusions

Different factors limit or enable reclassification, affecting consumer access to medicines in different countries. For countries attempting to reduce barriers to reclassification, solutions may include garnering government support for reclassification, support and flexibility from the medicines regulator, having a pharmacy-only and/or pharmacist-only category, providing market exclusivity, ensuring best practice in pharmacy, and minimizing the cost and delays of reclassification.