Medication therapy management and complex patients with disability: a randomized controlled trial

Comprehensive Medication Management Services with a Holistic Point of View, a Scoping Review

Implementing Comprehensive Medication Management (CMM) services uncovered the importance of the totality of the patient's perspective in this process. The holistic approach takes into account the physical, mental and emotional well-being of individuals, as well as their socioeconomic circumstances. The aim of this study was to characterize the scientific evidence associated with CMM services that included this holistic approach. A scoping review was conducted based on Arksey and O'Malley's method. Searches were performed in Google Scholar for papers published between 2010 and 2020 in English, Spanish and Portuguese. Study design, health contexts, sample of patients, results obtained, barriers and facilitators, and the integration of a holistic approach were determined. Two hundred and eighteen papers were evaluated, most of which focused on the implementation of this service through prospective observational studies. A minority of studies reported on a holistic approach, a smaller number examined the effect of social determinants of health, the patient's medication experiences and the pharmacotherapy outcomes from the patient's perspective. Despite the progress achieved, most of the referents do not yet reflect a broader view of the patient's life situation and its relationship to pharmacotherapy and the ways in which the pharmacist implements holistic elements to solve or prevent drug-related problems.

Design and development of a mobile app of drug information for people with visual impairment

BACKGROUND

People with visual impairment presents difficulties to access the labels information of medicines. In this sense, technological tools can contribute to improve access to this information and the appropriate use of medicines in this population. However, currently, in Colombia, there are no tools to facilitate this process.

OBJECTIVE

To design and development of a mobile app of drug information for people with visual impairment, which allows them to access information for the appropriate use of medicines.

METHODS

A user-centered design process is carried out in four phases was used: a) Identification the needs and barriers for appropriate use of medicines; b) Lifting of requirements, c) Interface design and prototyping, and development of the mobile app, and d) Usability test.

RESULTS

The study involved 48 people with visual disability, of which 69% required assistance for the use of medicines. The main barriers identified were access to information and dosing. A total of ten user requirements were identified, based on these and international accessibility standards FarmaceuticApp was designed and developed, incorporating the problems that were identified in the usability test.

CONCLUSION

A mobile app of drug information for people with visual impairment using a user-centered design process was designed and developed, highlighting the importance of involving the users and other stakeholders in the design and development m-health technologies. FarmaceuticApp could contribute to the appropriate use of medicines and improve therapeutic adherence, as well as autonomy and independence in people with visual impairment.

Pharmacist services for non-hospitalised patients

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.