For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
5
views
83
references
 Top references
cited by
4
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      517
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Systematic review of pragmatic randomised control trials assessing the effectiveness of professional pharmacy services in community pharmacies

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06150-8.

          Related collections

          Most cited references83

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

          David Moher, Larissa Shamseer, Mike Clarke … (2017)
          Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
          Article 0 comments Cited 5893 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance

            Peter Craig, Paul Dieppe, Sally Macintyre … (2008)
            Evaluating complex interventions is complicated. The Medical Research Council's evaluation framework (2000) brought welcome clarity to the task. Now the council has updated its guidance
            Article 0 comments Cited 1750 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose.

              Kirsty Loudon, Shaun Treweek, Frank Sullivan … (2015)
              Article 0 comments Cited 475 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                R. Varas-Doval:
                ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0666-9739
                raquelvaras@redfarma.org
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMC Health Serv Res
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMC Health Serv Res
                Title: BMC Health Services Research
                Publisher: BioMed Central (London )
                ISSN (Electronic): 1472-6963
                Publication date (Electronic): 17 February 2021
                Publication date PMC-release: 17 February 2021
                Publication date Collection: 2021
                Volume: 21
                Electronic Location Identifier: 156
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Spanish General Pharmaceutical Council, Villanueva 11, 28001 Madrid, Spain
                [2 ]GRID grid.440816.f, ISNI 0000 0004 1762 4960, Faculty of Health Sciences, , San Jorge University, ; Villanueva de Gállego, Zaragoza, Spain
                [3 ]GRID grid.4489.1, ISNI 0000000121678994, Pharmaceutical Research Group of the University of Granada, Faculty of Pharmacy, Granada University, ; Granada, Spain
                [4 ]GRID grid.117476.2, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7611, Graduate School of Health, Discipline of Pharmacy, , University of Technology Sydney, ; Sydney, NSW Australia
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0666-9739
                Article
                Publisher ID: 6150
                DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-06150-8
                PMC ID: 7890900
                PubMed ID: 33596906
                SO-VID: 4cf1349f-0d62-4ec4-b2a9-1cfb8863de6c
                Copyright © © The Author(s) 2021
                License:

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                Date received : 19 August 2020
                Date accepted : 3 February 2021
                Categories
                Subject: Research Article
                Custom metadata
                issue-copyright-statement © The Author(s) 2021

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Health & Social care
                Keywords: naturalistic,comparative effectiveness research,pragmatic clinical trials,pharmaceutical care,community pharmacy services,clinical pharmacy services,professional pharmacy services,community pharmacy
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Health & Social care
                Keywords: naturalistic, comparative effectiveness research, pragmatic clinical trials, pharmaceutical care, community pharmacy services, clinical pharmacy services, professional pharmacy services, community pharmacy

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content517

                See all similar

                Cited by4

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,436

                See all reference authors