The Help for Hay Fever community pharmacy-based pilot randomised controlled trial for intermittent allergic rhinitis

The effectiveness of pharmacist-led educational model in adult patients with allergic rhinitis: a single-center randomized control trial protocol (AR-PRISE RCT)

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis is a chronic respiratory disorder that significantly impacts patients' quality of life (QoL) and work performance. Pharmacists are recognized as suitable professionals to provide patient education and pharmaceutical care for managing allergic rhinitis patients. However, local clinical practice guidelines, particularly regarding pharmaceutical care in public healthcare institutions, are lacking. This study protocol outlines a randomized controlled trial (RCT) designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a pharmacist-led educational model (AR-PRISE Model) in managing allergic rhinitis in adult patients compared to standard pharmaceutical care. The AR-PRISE model delivers patient educational material and a pharmaceutical care algorithm.

METHOD

This is a 6-month, single-center, prospective, randomized, two-arm, and parallel-group controlled trial. The trial recruits patients attending the otorhinolaryngology clinics of a tertiary referral hospital. Participants are randomized into control or intervention groups in a 1:1 ratio using permuted block randomization. The total number of participants estimated is 154, with each group requiring 77 participants. The control group receives standard pharmaceutical care, while the intervention group receives pharmacist-led education according to the AR-PRISE model. Both groups are assessed for middle turbinate endoscopy findings, disease severity, knowledge level, symptom control, medication adherence, and QoL at baseline and the end-of-study follow-up (day 180 ± 7). Depending on feasibility, intermediate follow-ups are conducted on days 60 ± 7 and 120 ± 7, either virtually or face-to-face. During intermediate follow-ups, participants are assessed for symptom control, medication adherence, and QoL. The intention-to-treat analysis includes all participants assigned to each group. An independent T-test compares the mean difference in knowledge level between the two groups. A two-way repeated measures ANOVA analysis is employed to determine between-group differences for scores of symptom control, adherence rate, and QoL. A P-value < 0.05 is considered statistically significant.

DISCUSSION

This study protocol will provide a framework for conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacist-led education intervention in managing allergic rhinitis within public healthcare settings. The parameters measured in this trial will quantify outcomes associated with improvements in symptoms and QoL. By systematically assessing these outcomes, we aim to contribute valuable insights into the role of pharmacist-led interventions in enhancing the management of allergic rhinitis in public healthcare settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06027736 . Registered on 9 July 2023-retrospectively registered.

Development and validation of a pharmacist-led education model in allergic rhinitis management: a multi-phase study

BACKGROUND

Patient education is identified as one of the core and fundamental management strategies in the management of allergic rhinitis. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines developed guidance for the management of allergic respiratory disease, and the guidelines are applicable to the international context. The ARIA guidelines for the pharmacy have specifically encouraged the creation of local pharmacist-led intervention in allergic rhinitis management. This study aims to develop a pharmacist-led educational model using a multi-phase study approach.

METHOD

In phase one, we conducted a literature review using four databases to extract relevant articles and clinical practice guidelines published between 2017 and 2022. The information was structured into a questionnaire consisting of patient education material (10 domains with 130 items) and pharmacist counseling scopes (15 domains with 43 items), with each item having a rating scale ranging from 1 (lowest) to 9 (highest) level of agreement. Fifty-two panellists, including otorhinolaryngologists and pharmacists, were invited to complete the questionnaire. A consensus agreement was considered when at least 70% of panellists scored 7 to 9 (critically important). A two-round survey was conducted, and descriptive analysis, inter-rater reliability (≥ 0.5-1 indicate moderate to excellent reliability), variation in the relative interquartile (VRIR < 0.3 indicate good stability), and variation in the coefficient of variation (VCV < 40% considered consensus achieved) were performed. In phase two, patient education material was developed into audio-visual format, and in phase three, patients rated its understandability and actionability using a validated Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool.

RESULTS

In the round one Delphi survey, 43 panellists responded, with 171 out of 173 items achieving "consensus agreement" (75.4-100%). In the second survey, 32 out of 43 panellists responded, with most items (171 out of 173 items) stable across rounds and all items had acceptable internal consistency (VCV: - 12.21-15.81). Two items did not achieve "consensus agreement" (64%) but improved in round two (92.9%), however, instability was observed (VRIR: 0.36). These two items were retained in the model due to achieving the minimum level of agreement and internal consistency (VCV = 15.81). Inter-rater reliability was 0.608 and 0.970 in the respective rounds. Patients rated the educational material as understandable (81.8-100%) and actionable (100%).

CONCLUSION

The validated pharmacist-led education model, with its educational materials tested on end-users, provides structured patient education and pharmaceutical care in assisting patients with allergic rhinitis. The educational material allows the delivery of standardized information by the healthcare providers to the patients. Further research on the effectiveness of this model in improving patients' symptom control and quality of life is warranted.

Will the Public Engage with New Pharmacy Roles? Assessing Future Uptake of a Community Pharmacy Health Check Using a Discrete Choice Experiment

BACKGROUND

Pharmacists are increasingly providing more clinically orientated services that focus on enhancing patient care and health promotion. However, little is known about how acceptable this is to the public. This study explored public preferences for a community pharmacy-based health check for cardiovascular disease (CVD).

METHODS

A convenience sample of 423 individuals was recruited (from a community pharmacy, a dental practice, a shopping centre, a university campus and a sports centre) to complete a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey administered face to face on a tablet. The DCE included six attributes: day of the week (weekday or weekends); way of accessing the service (walk-in and wait or by appointment); provider of health check (trainee pharmacist, pharmacist or nurse); duration of health check (30 or 45 min); follow-up phone call (no, yes and within 3 months); and cost (included to estimate the monetary value of health checks). Experimental design methods were used to create 12 choice tasks describing different health check services. Mixed logit (MXL) was used to analyse response data.

RESULTS

Respondents had a preference for a community pharmacy-based CVD health check over no health check. They preferred a service provided (i) at the weekend; (ii) by appointment; (iii) by a nurse; (iv) for 30 min and (v) with follow-up after 3 months. Respondents were willing to pay £50 for this health check.

CONCLUSION

Findings affirm the public's acceptance and value of a pharmacy-led CVD health check. The findings can inform pharmacy-based screening services before they are introduced, guide new service design and support resource allocation decisions.