R Varas-Doval1, L Saéz-Benito2,3, M A Gastelurrutia3, S I Benrimoj3, V Garcia-Cardenas3,4, F Martinez-Martínez3. 1. Spanish General Pharmaceutical Council, Villanueva 11, 28001, Madrid, Spain. raquelvaras@redfarma.org. 2. Faculty of Health Sciences, San Jorge University, Villanueva de Gállego, Zaragoza, Spain. 3. Pharmaceutical Research Group of the University of Granada, Faculty of Pharmacy, Granada University, Granada, Spain. 4. Graduate School of Health, Discipline of Pharmacy, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implementation of Professional Pharmacy Services (PPSs) requires a demonstration of the service's impact (efficacy) and its effectiveness. Several systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCT) have shown the efficacy of PPSs in patient's outcomes in community pharmacy. There is, however, a need to determine the level of evidence on the effectiveness of PPSs in daily practice by means of pragmatic trials. To identify and analyse pragmatic RCTs that measure the effectiveness of PPSs in clinical, economic and humanistic outcomes in the community pharmacy setting. METHODS: A systematic search was undertaken in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and SCIELO. The search was performed on January 31, 2020. Papers were assessed against the following inclusion criteria (1) The intervention could be defined as a PPS; (2) Undertaken in a community pharmacy setting; (3) Was an original paper; (4) Reported quantitative measures of at least one health outcome indicator (ECHO model); (5) The design was considered as a pragmatic RCT, that is, it fulfilled 3 predefined attributes. External validity was analyzed with PRECIS- 2 tool. RESULTS: The search strategy retrieved 1,587 papers. A total of 12 pragmatic RCTs assessing 5 different types of PPSs were included. Nine out of the 12 papers showed positive statistically significant differences in one or more of the primary outcomes (clinical, economic or humanistic) that could be associated with the following PPS: Smoking cessation, Dispensing/Adherence service, Independent prescribing and MTM. No paper reported on cost-effectiveness outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited available evidence on the effectiveness of community-based PPS. Pragmatic RCTs to evaluate clinical, humanistic and economic outcomes of PPS are needed.
BACKGROUND: Implementation of Professional Pharmacy Services (PPSs) requires a demonstration of the service's impact (efficacy) and its effectiveness. Several systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCT) have shown the efficacy of PPSs in patient's outcomes in community pharmacy. There is, however, a need to determine the level of evidence on the effectiveness of PPSs in daily practice by means of pragmatic trials. To identify and analyse pragmatic RCTs that measure the effectiveness of PPSs in clinical, economic and humanistic outcomes in the community pharmacy setting. METHODS: A systematic search was undertaken in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and SCIELO. The search was performed on January 31, 2020. Papers were assessed against the following inclusion criteria (1) The intervention could be defined as a PPS; (2) Undertaken in a community pharmacy setting; (3) Was an original paper; (4) Reported quantitative measures of at least one health outcome indicator (ECHO model); (5) The design was considered as a pragmatic RCT, that is, it fulfilled 3 predefined attributes. External validity was analyzed with PRECIS- 2 tool. RESULTS: The search strategy retrieved 1,587 papers. A total of 12 pragmatic RCTs assessing 5 different types of PPSs were included. Nine out of the 12 papers showed positive statistically significant differences in one or more of the primary outcomes (clinical, economic or humanistic) that could be associated with the following PPS: Smoking cessation, Dispensing/Adherence service, Independent prescribing and MTM. No paper reported on cost-effectiveness outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited available evidence on the effectiveness of community-based PPS. Pragmatic RCTs to evaluate clinical, humanistic and economic outcomes of PPS are needed.
Entities:
Keywords:
Clinical pharmacy services; Community pharmacy; Community pharmacy services; Comparative effectiveness research; Naturalistic; Pharmaceutical care; Pragmatic clinical trials; Professional pharmacy services
Authors: Mary Jean Costello; Beth Sproule; J Charles Victor; Scott T Leatherdale; Laurie Zawertailo; Peter Selby Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2010-12-12 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Ross T Tsuyuki; Sherilyn K D Houle; Theresa L Charrois; Michael R Kolber; Meagen M Rosenthal; Richard Lewanczuk; Norm R C Campbell; Dale Cooney; Finlay A McAlister Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-06-10 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Alan J Zillich; Margie E Snyder; Caitlin K Frail; Julie L Lewis; Donny Deshotels; Patrick Dunham; Heather A Jaynes; Jason M Sutherland Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2014-04-09 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Rachel Ann Elliott; Matthew J Boyd; Nde-Eshimuni Salema; James Davies; Nicholas Barber; Rajnikant Laxmishanker Mehta; Lukasz Tanajewski; Justin Waring; Asam Latif; Georgios Gkountouras; A J Avery; Antony Chuter; Christopher Craig Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2015-12-08 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Stuart G Nicholls; Kelly Carroll; Spencer Phillips Hey; Merrick Zwarenstein; Jennifer Zhe Zhang; Hayden P Nix; Jamie C Brehaut; Joanne E McKenzie; Steve McDonald; Charles Weijer; Dean A Fergusson; Monica Taljaard Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2021-03-28 Impact factor: 6.437