Back

The risks and benefits associated with the self-selection of pharmacy medicines (PMEDs): A rapid systematic review

Ross, L. S.; Guirguis, A.; Tang, W.; Wilson, L.; Jones, E.; Davies, J. E.; Ashiru-Oredope, D.

2025-07-14 pharmacology and therapeutics
10.1101/2025.07.12.25331435 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundPharmacies in the UK are increasingly implementing a self-selection model for Pharmacy medicines (PMEDs) in physical pharmacies and allowing their purchase from online pharmacies. This model potentially weakens the additional level of protection recommended by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) by removing the opportunity for intervention, possibly risking patient harm. ObjectiveTo assess the risks and benefits associated with a PMEDs self-selection model in pharmacy settings. MethodsA systematic search was conducted across three databases (PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library) from 01/10/2024 to 22/10/2024. The search terms comprised Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and free text with wildcard truncations. Only studies published from 01/2014 - 10/2024 and published in English were eligible for inclusion. Studies identified (were exported to Excel, where duplicates were removed . The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess the quality of all included studies. ResultsA total of 55 studies of the 104 initially screened were included in the review. The country most frequently reported on was Australia (10/55; 18%), followed by multi-location/global studies (9/55; 16%). The majority (30/55; 55%) of studies focussed on the views and experiences of pharmacy professionals, and approximately a quarter (13/55; 24%) focussed on patient views, experiences, or behaviours. The benefits identified from the included literature were relatively consistent, focussing on access to care, reducing pressure on health systems, and improved patient autonomy. However, the list of risks identified was far more heterogenous, covering a range of themes, including, adverse effects of medication, inappropriate use of medication, and reduced intervention opportunities, and self-diagnoses delaying required care. The risks associated with medication self-selection were more frequently discussed when compared with benefits. ConclusionsAlthough this review identified risks and benefits associated with medication self-selection more broadly, none of the included publications solely discussed PMEDs. More research is needed to fully understand the risks and benefits of the self-selection model for this classification of medicines.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
18.0%
2
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.9%
3
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.9%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 23%
8.2%
50% of probability mass above
5
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.1%
6
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.1%
7
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.7%
8
BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.0%
9
The British Journal of Psychiatry
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.0%
10
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.6%
11
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.6%
12
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.4%
13
Pharmaceutics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
14
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
15
Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
16
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
17
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
18
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
19
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
20
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
21
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
22
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.7%