However, randomisation should have counteracted any selection bias. Patient recruitment was lower than expected and less than the power calculations, because of a coinciding reduced throughput in patients starting methadone which may partially explain the lack of effect. Furthermore, the patient follow-up rate (62%) was poorer than Akt inhibitor expected owing to the number of patients who moved pharmacy. Although it was possible to verify the treatment status of many patients if they had moved to another local pharmacy, this was not always possible. It was also not always possible to complete a follow-up questionnaire as pharmacies not originally involved in the study were not always

willing or able to have the researcher visit or to ask patients to complete follow-up questionnaires themselves. The movement of patients between pharmacies is an interesting observation that requires further exploration. A study limitation was that it was not possible to determine the extent

to which the intervention was delivered as intended. It is also recognised that the level of MI training provided is not consistent with recommendations for training in MI, as this was not practical. However, the aim of training was not to create motivational interviewers but to use the ethos of MI as a framework for increased communication. Assessment of MI skills of pharmacists attending the final training sessions using the BECCI[13] revealed competence in the use of MI techniques. Difficulty in assessing competency PD-0332991 molecular weight in delivery of MI is well recognised and, in retrospect, it may have been more appropriate to have assessed the integrity Suplatast tosilate of the MI provided using the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI) scale.[18] However, the trial was pragmatic and pharmacists were to deliver the intervention as they saw fit. This may have differed substantially across pharmacies and may account for the lack of effect on the

primary outcome. Patient feedback suggests intervention pharmacists were talking slightly more to patients than the control group and patients attending these pharmacists were more likely to find these conversations useful. Nevertheless, the level of this communication should have been much higher if the intervention was delivered fully as intended. Ideally the number and length of interactions would have been recorded but we did not want to burden pharmacists with more paperwork. It is also possible that the training may not have sufficiently focused on the key study outcomes such as illicit drug use. Other limitations are that the MAP is based on patient self-report and was conducted by the research fellow who, for practical reasons, was aware of each patients’ randomisation group (as this was done by pharmacy). However, this was the same for both intervention and control patients, is balanced across the groups and the very structured nature of the MAP limits any possible influence of the researcher.