Studies that were identified as potentially relevant were initially screened (1329) after duplicates were removed. A total of 54 articles, abstracts and research papers were selected for full-text assessment from which 22 were included in this review after screening by two reviewers (a research assistant and the lead author PD) (see Figure 1, a flow diagram outlining the steps). The selected articles met at least one of the main criteria for this review by presenting data on barriers or facilitators and attitudes in relation to pharmacy professionals’ participation GDC-0068 in
CPD and/or mapping engagement with and uptake of CPD in pharmacy in GB. In relation to research papers, studies were excluded if the focus was on a different group of health professionals with no orientation towards pharmacy. Papers were excluded find more if the focus
was simply on CE or professionalism per se or if the focus was only on the pharmacy student cohort. Studies were also excluded if the country of focus was outside of GB; i.e. studies conducted in Northern Ireland were excluded. In addition, papers were excluded if the focus was purely on subsets of skills usually associated with CPD, such as reflective learning by itself, or on actual content relating to CPD, for example learning clinical pharmacy. We did not include in the review a study examining feedback on CPD provided by RPSGB because this very specific study did not investigate general attitudes to CPD but was instead a form of ‘satisfaction with feedback study’. We did nonetheless acknowledge the contribution of this study to the field in the discussion section of this paper. We did not include any studies
published or relating to the period before 2000 but viewed them as providing context ahead of the launch of CPD. A grid was created to record the summaries of the articles for further literature synchronisation and later construction of the literature review. This took the form of a data extraction form that enabled inclusion of studies based on eligibility in the first instance and then quality assessment at a later stage (see below). Astemizole This initial tabulation presented information on study characteristics as the year study was conducted; main study design and method of data collection; sector of pharmacy; geographical location of the study; the sample size; and a brief summary of the aims. It was not possible to use the PICOS (participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes and study design) categorisation because the studies were not necessarily interventional in nature. Instead quality scoring of the articles was attempted in accordance to the recommendations of the Qualitative Assessment Review Instrument (QARI)  (suggested by the Cochrane Collaboration).