Yeung · International journal of clinical pharmacy 2023 · mixed-methods study (survey and semi-structured qualitative interviews) · n=24

Pharmacists' perspectives and attitudes towards the 2021 down-scheduling of melatonin in Australia using the Theoretical Domains Framework: a mixed-methods study.

Cited 4 times in the scientific literature.

Level 4 - case-series / case-control

Cross-sectional mixed-methods interview and survey study (graded by design analogy)

PubMed 37354280 · doi:10.1007/s11096-023-01605-w · record verified 2026-08-28

What was done

A mixed-methods study evaluating Australian community pharmacists' and pharmacy interns' views on the June 2021 down-scheduling of melatonin to a 'Pharmacist Only Medicine' for patients aged over 55 with insomnia. A convenience sample completed a demographic and attitude survey followed by semi-structured online interviews guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework. Interviews were conducted to data saturation, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using the Framework Approach.

What was found

Twenty-four participants (19 community pharmacists and 5 intern pharmacists, all metropolitan) were interviewed. Participants supported improved patient access to melatonin but noted operational difficulties, including discrepancies between clinical guidelines, supply protocols, and pack sizes that complicated monitoring. Unclear public understanding of eligibility criteria created pharmacist-patient tension when requests were refused. Most participants reported wanting additional education regarding formulation differences and dose titration. Specific quantitative survey metrics were not reported in the abstract.

Why it matters

Highlights the implementation challenges and educational gaps that emerge when prescription sleep medications are down-scheduled to pharmacist-only supply, informing future regulatory rollouts and pharmacy protocols.

Limits

Small convenience sample (n = 24) confined strictly to metropolitan settings, limiting generalizability to regional or rural pharmacies. The abstract omits quantitative survey response rates and statistical data. Findings rely entirely on self-reported perceptions rather than objective prescribing, dispensing, or patient safety outcomes.

Cited by