J Tichelaar1,2, M C Richir3,4, S Garner5, H Hogerzeil6, Th P G M de Vries3,4. 1. Research and Expertise Center In Pharmacotherapy Education (RECIPE), Amsterdam, the Netherlands. j.tichelaar@amsterdamumc.nl. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Section Pharmacotherapy, Amsterdam UMC, location VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117 (ZH 4A48), 1081 HV, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. j.tichelaar@amsterdamumc.nl. 3. Research and Expertise Center In Pharmacotherapy Education (RECIPE), Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Section Pharmacotherapy, Amsterdam UMC, location VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117 (ZH 4A48), 1081 HV, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 5. WHO, Health Technologies and Pharmaceuticals Programme, WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark. 6. Department of Health Sciences Global Health, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Twenty-five years ago, the World Health Organization (WHO) published the Guide to Good Prescribing (GGP), followed by the accompanying Teacher's Guide to Good Prescribing (TGGP). The GGP is based on a normative 6-step model for therapeutic reasoning and prescribing, and provides a six-step guide for students to the process of rational prescribing. METHOD: We reviewed the need to update both WHO publications by evaluating their use and impact, including new (theoretical) insights and demands. Based on information from literature, Internet, and other (personal) sources, we draw the following conclusions. RESULTS: 1. An update of the GGP and TGGP, both in terms of content and form, is necessary because of the current need for these tools (irrational medicine use and unavailability of medicines), the lack of similar documents, and the lack of connection with recent developments, such as Internet and modern education; 2. The basic (6-step) model of the GGP is effective in terms of rational prescribing in the undergraduate situation and is still consistent with current theories about (context) learning, clinical decision-making, and clinical practice; 3. The dissemination and introduction of the GGP and TGGP in education has been successful so far, but is still not optimal because of lack of support and cooperation. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the evaluation results, a plan for the revision of the GGP and TGGP is presented.
INTRODUCTION: Twenty-five years ago, the World Health Organization (WHO) published the Guide to Good Prescribing (GGP), followed by the accompanying Teacher's Guide to Good Prescribing (TGGP). The GGP is based on a normative 6-step model for therapeutic reasoning and prescribing, and provides a six-step guide for students to the process of rational prescribing. METHOD: We reviewed the need to update both WHO publications by evaluating their use and impact, including new (theoretical) insights and demands. Based on information from literature, Internet, and other (personal) sources, we draw the following conclusions. RESULTS: 1. An update of the GGP and TGGP, both in terms of content and form, is necessary because of the current need for these tools (irrational medicine use and unavailability of medicines), the lack of similar documents, and the lack of connection with recent developments, such as Internet and modern education; 2. The basic (6-step) model of the GGP is effective in terms of rational prescribing in the undergraduate situation and is still consistent with current theories about (context) learning, clinical decision-making, and clinical practice; 3. The dissemination and introduction of the GGP and TGGP in education has been successful so far, but is still not optimal because of lack of support and cooperation. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the evaluation results, a plan for the revision of the GGP and TGGP is presented.
Keywords:
Clinical pharmacology; Education; Guide to good prescribing; Pharmacotherapy; Rational prescribing; WHO 6 step
Authors: Carolina J P W Keijsers; Johanna E de Wit; Jelle Tichelaar; Jacobus R B J Brouwers; Dick J de Wildt; P G M de Vries; Paul A F Jansen Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2015-03-11 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Tim van der Voort; David J Brinkman; Silvia Benemei; Ylva Böttiger; Bernard Chamontin; Thierry Christiaens; Robert Likic; Romaldas Mačiulaitis; Toomas Marandi; Emilia C Monteiro; Paraskevi Papaioannidou; Yves M Pers; Caridad Pontes; Aleksandar Raskovic; Ralf Regenthal; Emilio J Sanz; Kurt Wilson; Jelle Tichelaar; Michiel A van Agtmael Journal: Int J Antimicrob Agents Date: 2019-05-07 Impact factor: 5.283
Authors: David R M Jansen; Carolina J P W Keijsers; Michiel O Kornelissen; Marcel G M Olde Rikkert; Cornelis Kramers Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2019-05-18 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Glyn Elwyn; Dominick Frosch; Richard Thomson; Natalie Joseph-Williams; Amy Lloyd; Paul Kinnersley; Emma Cording; Dave Tomson; Carole Dodd; Stephen Rollnick; Adrian Edwards; Michael Barry Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Michiel J Bakkum; Jelle Tichelaar; Anne Wellink; Milan C Richir; Michiel A van Agtmael Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Erik Donker; David Brinkman; Milan Richir; Paraskevi Papaioannidou; Robert Likic; Emilio J Sanz; Thierry Christiaens; João Costa; Fabrizio De Ponti; Milo Gatti; Ylva Böttiger; Cornelis Kramers; Sarah Garner; Rahul Pandit; Michiel van Agtmael; Jelle Tichelaar Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Rowan Sultan; Tessa O van den Beukel; Michael O Reumerman; Hester E M Daelmans; Hans Springer; Els Grijmans; Majon Muller; Milan C Richir; Michiel A van Agtmael; Jelle Tichelaar Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 6.903