A search BYL719 molecular weight of the following electronic databases was completed: Web of Science (1995–2011), ScienceDirect (1995–2011), Medline (1995–2011), CINAHL (1995–2011),

NeLM (1995–2011) and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1995–2011). The Pharmaceutical Journal was searched online (1999–2010). The Pharmaceutical Journal (1995–1998) and The International Journal of Pharmacy Practice (1995–2003) were searched manually by VL, as full articles were not available online previous to this. In addition, publication libraries of the Pharmacy Practice Research Trust and the RPSGB were also searched. All publication types were included in the searches. Bibliographies of articles identified as being relevant were searched manually. Search periods were set between 1995 and May 2011. These dates were chosen to include a period of 10 years before the commencement of changes introduced AZD2281 by the most recent community pharmacy contractual framework in England and Wales. This gave a good period to search for studies both leading up to and after these changes thus enabling comparisons to be made relating to the effect of new service provision. Multiple databases were searched, which led to duplication of some articles.

The total number of studies identified, as described in Table 1 excludes any duplicates. The following were used as search terms in the form of key words and ‘free text’ searches: pharmacy; pharmacist; pharm*; community; comm.*; retail; dispensing; dispens*; work; workload; work*; work measurement; work activity; task; productivity; job satisfaction; job stress. Table 1 provides detailed information on the search terms used for each electronic database searched as well as articles found during manual searches. Publications were only included in the review if they met the inclusion criteria set out in Table 2. Research that was unpublished at the time of the review was excluded as full access to such materials could not be gained. Where research was published

PIK3C2G as both conference and research papers, only the full research paper was included in the review. The literature search was conducted by one researcher (VL). Both VL and an academic (RR) examined titles and abstracts independently to determine which papers were relevant for review. All papers originating outside the UK were then excluded. Next, studies not investigating any aspect of community pharmacists’ workload were excluded. The researcher (VL) and academic (RR) then determined from the remaining studies which were relevant for review in relation to the inclusion and exclusion criteria set out in Table 2. A custom-designed table was used to enter data from each study to ensure consistent data extraction when reviewing included papers. Data from the papers were entered into the table under the following headings: Reference; Study aims and summary; Pharmacy sector; Country in which research conducted; Sample and research methodology.