Chiranjeev Sanyal1, Donald R Husereau2. 1. Canadian Pharmacists Association, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: csanyal@pharmacists.ca. 2. School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of cost-utility studies of community-based services provided by pharmacists and to examine their reporting and methodological quality. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed in February 2019 using a replicable search strategy in bibliographic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the NHS Economic Evaluations Database from their inception onwards. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, abstracted data from full-text articles, and assessed reporting and methodological quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and Quality of Health Economic Studies checklists. RESULTS: Twenty studies were included in this review, representing the healthcare systems of the United Kingdom, Spain, France, The Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Canada, the United States of America, and Brazil. Descriptions of the context in which the studies were done, justification of data sources on patient and process outcomes, choices of model, and generalizability of study findings were often inadequately reported. Seven studies (35%) were deemed of high methodological quality, 11 studies (55%) of fair quality, and 2 studies (10%) of poor quality. In addition, various methodological issues related to the randomized controlled trials and observational studies used to generate effectiveness estimates were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In view of the lack of standardized definitions of expanded services, heterogeneity in study objectives, settings, comparators, methodology, outcomes, and the variable quality of these studies, the value of these services (in terms of costs) compared with quality-adjusted survival remains inconclusive.
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of cost-utility studies of community-based services provided by pharmacists and to examine their reporting and methodological quality. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed in February 2019 using a replicable search strategy in bibliographic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the NHS Economic Evaluations Database from their inception onwards. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, abstracted data from full-text articles, and assessed reporting and methodological quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and Quality of Health Economic Studies checklists. RESULTS: Twenty studies were included in this review, representing the healthcare systems of the United Kingdom, Spain, France, The Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Canada, the United States of America, and Brazil. Descriptions of the context in which the studies were done, justification of data sources on patient and process outcomes, choices of model, and generalizability of study findings were often inadequately reported. Seven studies (35%) were deemed of high methodological quality, 11 studies (55%) of fair quality, and 2 studies (10%) of poor quality. In addition, various methodological issues related to the randomized controlled trials and observational studies used to generate effectiveness estimates were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In view of the lack of standardized definitions of expanded services, heterogeneity in study objectives, settings, comparators, methodology, outcomes, and the variable quality of these studies, the value of these services (in terms of costs) compared with quality-adjusted survival remains inconclusive.