BACKGROUND: This review focuses on non-dispensing services from pharmacists, i.e. pharmacists in community, primary or ambulatory-care settings, to non-hospitalised patients, and is an update of a previously-published Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of pharmacists' non-dispensing services on non-hospitalised patient outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trial registers in March 2015, together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We included non-English language publications. We ran top-up searches in January 2018 and have added potentially eligible studies to 'Studies awaiting classification'. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of pharmacist services compared with the delivery of usual care or equivalent/similar services with the same objective delivered by other health professionals. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. Two review authors independently checked studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risks of bias. We evaluated the overall certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 116 trials comprising 111 trials (39,729 participants) comparing pharmacist interventions with usual care and five trials (2122 participants) comparing pharmacist services with services from other healthcare professionals. Of the 116 trials, 76 were included in meta-analyses. The 40 remaining trials were not included in the meta-analyses because they each reported unique outcome measures which could not be combined. Most trials targeted chronic conditions and were conducted in a range of settings, mostly community pharmacies and hospital outpatient clinics, and were mainly but not exclusively conducted in high-income countries. Most trials had a low risk of reporting bias and about 25%-30% were at high risk of bias for performance, detection, and attrition. Selection bias was unclear for about half of the included studies.Compared with usual care, we are uncertain whether pharmacist services reduce the percentage of patients outside the glycated haemoglobin target range (5 trials, N = 558, odds ratio (OR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 2.22; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may reduce the percentage of patients whose blood pressure is outside the target range (18 trials, N = 4107, OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.55; low-certainty evidence) and probably lead to little or no difference in hospital attendance or admissions (14 trials, N = 3631, OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.11; moderate-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may make little or no difference to adverse drug effects (3 trials, N = 590, OR 1.65, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.24) and may slightly improve physical functioning (7 trials, N = 1329, mean difference (MD) 5.84, 95% CI 1.21 to 10.48; low-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may make little or no difference to mortality (9 trials, N = 1980, OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.12, low-certaintly evidence).Of the five studies that compared services delivered by pharmacists with other health professionals, no studies evaluated the impact of the intervention on the percentage of patients outside blood pressure or glycated haemoglobin target range, hospital attendance and admission, adverse drug effects, or physical functioning. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that pharmacist services have varying effects on patient outcomes compared with usual care. We found no studies comparing services delivered by pharmacists with other healthcare professionals that evaluated the impact of the intervention on the six main outcome measures. The results need to be interpreted cautiously because there was major heterogeneity in study populations, types of interventions delivered and reported outcomes.There was considerable heterogeneity within many of the meta-analyses, as well as considerable variation in the risks of bias.
BACKGROUND: This review focuses on non-dispensing services from pharmacists, i.e. pharmacists in community, primary or ambulatory-care settings, to non-hospitalised patients, and is an update of a previously-published Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of pharmacists' non-dispensing services on non-hospitalised patient outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trial registers in March 2015, together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We included non-English language publications. We ran top-up searches in January 2018 and have added potentially eligible studies to 'Studies awaiting classification'. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of pharmacist services compared with the delivery of usual care or equivalent/similar services with the same objective delivered by other health professionals. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. Two review authors independently checked studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risks of bias. We evaluated the overall certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 116 trials comprising 111 trials (39,729 participants) comparing pharmacist interventions with usual care and five trials (2122 participants) comparing pharmacist services with services from other healthcare professionals. Of the 116 trials, 76 were included in meta-analyses. The 40 remaining trials were not included in the meta-analyses because they each reported unique outcome measures which could not be combined. Most trials targeted chronic conditions and were conducted in a range of settings, mostly community pharmacies and hospital outpatient clinics, and were mainly but not exclusively conducted in high-income countries. Most trials had a low risk of reporting bias and about 25%-30% were at high risk of bias for performance, detection, and attrition. Selection bias was unclear for about half of the included studies.Compared with usual care, we are uncertain whether pharmacist services reduce the percentage of patients outside the glycated haemoglobin target range (5 trials, N = 558, odds ratio (OR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 2.22; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may reduce the percentage of patients whose blood pressure is outside the target range (18 trials, N = 4107, OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.55; low-certainty evidence) and probably lead to little or no difference in hospital attendance or admissions (14 trials, N = 3631, OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.11; moderate-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may make little or no difference to adverse drug effects (3 trials, N = 590, OR 1.65, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.24) and may slightly improve physical functioning (7 trials, N = 1329, mean difference (MD) 5.84, 95% CI 1.21 to 10.48; low-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may make little or no difference to mortality (9 trials, N = 1980, OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.12, low-certaintly evidence).Of the five studies that compared services delivered by pharmacists with other health professionals, no studies evaluated the impact of the intervention on the percentage of patients outside blood pressure or glycated haemoglobin target range, hospital attendance and admission, adverse drug effects, or physical functioning. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that pharmacist services have varying effects on patient outcomes compared with usual care. We found no studies comparing services delivered by pharmacists with other healthcare professionals that evaluated the impact of the intervention on the six main outcome measures. The results need to be interpreted cautiously because there was major heterogeneity in study populations, types of interventions delivered and reported outcomes.There was considerable heterogeneity within many of the meta-analyses, as well as considerable variation in the risks of bias.
Authors: Dima Omran; Sumit R Majumdar; Jeffrey A Johnson; Ross T Tsuyuki; Richard Z Lewanczuk; Lisa M Guirguis; Mark Makowsky; Scot H Simpson Journal: J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) Date: 2015 May-Jun
Authors: Carolina M X Olivera; Elcio Oliveira Vianna; Roni C Bonizio; Marcelo B de Menezes; Erica Ferraz; Andrea A Cetlin; Laura M Valdevite; Gustavo A Almeida; Ana S Araujo; Christian S Simoneti; Amanda de Freitas; Elisangela A Lizzi; Marcos C Borges; Osvaldo de Freitas Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2016-07-29
Authors: Carlo A Marra; Jolanda Cibere; Maja Grubisic; Kelly A Grindrod; Louise Gastonguay; Jamie M Thomas; Patrick Embley; Lindsey Colley; Ross T Tsuyuki; Karim M Khan; John M Esdaile Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Beverly B Green; Melissa L Anderson; James D Ralston; Sheryl L Catz; Andrea J Cook Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-07-08 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Jan D Hirsch; Neil Steers; David S Adler; Grace M Kuo; Candis M Morello; Megan Lang; Renu F Singh; Yelena Wood; Robert M Kaplan; Carol M Mangione Journal: Clin Ther Date: 2014-07-30 Impact factor: 3.393
Authors: I Krass; C L Armour; B Mitchell; M Brillant; R Dienaar; J Hughes; P Lau; G Peterson; K Stewart; S Taylor; J Wilkinson Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 4.359
Authors: João R Gonçalves; Isabel Ramalhinho; Betsy L Sleath; Manuel J Lopes; Afonso M Cavaco Journal: Eur Geriatr Med Date: 2021-03-20 Impact factor: 1.710
Authors: Philip D Hall; Hannah Fish; Sarah McBane; Jeff Mercer; Cynthia Moreau; James Owen; Anne Policastri; Gail B Rattinger; Sneha Baxi Srivastava; Michael C Thomas; Lynette R Bradley-Baker Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Patrick Timpel; Lorenz Harst; Doreen Reifegerste; Susann Weihrauch-Blüher; Peter E H Schwarz Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2019-08-27 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Lorcan Clarke; Michael Anderson; Rob Anderson; Morten Bonde Klausen; Rebecca Forman; Jenna Kerns; Adrian Rabe; Søren Rud Kristensen; Pavlos Theodorakis; Jose Valderas; Hans Kluge; Elias Mossialos Journal: Milbank Q Date: 2021-09-02 Impact factor: 4.911
Authors: Liz Steed; Ratna Sohanpal; Adam Todd; Vichithranie W Madurasinghe; Carol Rivas; Elizabeth A Edwards; Carolyn D Summerbell; Stephanie Jc Taylor; R T Walton Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-12-06
Authors: Sarira El-Den; Sara S McMillan; Amanda J Wheeler; Ricki Ng; Helena Roennfeldt; Claire L O'Reilly Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-07-13 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jennifer Valeska Elli Brown; Nick Walton; Nicholas Meader; Adam Todd; Lisa Ad Webster; Rachel Steele; Stephanie J Sampson; Rachel Churchill; Dean McMillan; Simon Gilbody; David Ekers Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-12-23
Authors: Mícheál de Barra; Claire Scott; Marie Johnston; M De Bruin; Neil Scott; Catriona Matheson; Christine Bond; Margaret Watson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-12-19 Impact factor: 2.692