The association between self-monitoring of blood glucose, hemoglobin A1C and testing patterns in community pharmacies: Results of a pilot study

Community pharmacy interventions for health promotion: effects on professional practice and health outcomes

BACKGROUND

Community pharmacies are an easily accessible and cost-effective platform for delivering health care worldwide, and the range of services provided has undergone rapid expansion in recent years. Thus, in addition to dispensing medication, pharmacy workers within community pharmacies now give advice on a range of health-promoting behaviours that aim to improve health and to optimise the management of long-term conditions. However, it remains uncertain whether these health-promotion interventions can change the professional practice of pharmacy workers, improve health behaviours and outcomes for pharmacy users and have the potential to address health inequalities.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of health-promotion interventions to change community pharmacy workers' professional practice and improve outcomes for users of community pharmacies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, six other databases and two trials registers to 6 February 2018. We also conducted reference checking, citation searches and contacted study authors to identify any additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials of health-promotion interventions in community pharmacies targeted at, or delivered by, pharmacy workers that aimed to improve the health-related behaviour of people attending the pharmacy compared to no treatment, or usual treatment received in the community pharmacy. We excluded interventions where there was no interaction between pharmacy workers and pharmacy users, and those that focused on medication use only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard procedures recommended by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care review group for both data collection and analysis. We compared intervention to no intervention or to usual treatment using standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) (higher scores represent better outcomes for pharmacy user health-related behaviour and quality of life, and lower scores represent better outcomes for clinical outcomes, costs and adverse events). Interpretation of effect sizes (SMD) was in line with Cochrane recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 57 randomised trials with 16,220 participants, described in 83 reports. Forty-nine studies were conducted in high-income countries, and eight in middle-income countries. We found no studies that had been conducted in low-income countries. Most interventions were educational, or incorporated skills training. Interventions were directed at pharmacy workers (n = 8), pharmacy users (n = 13), or both (n = 36). The clinical areas most frequently studied were diabetes, hypertension, asthma, and modification of cardiovascular risk. Duration of follow-up of interventions was often unclear. Only five studies gave details about the theoretical basis for the intervention, and studies did not provide sufficient data to comment on health inequalities. The most common sources of bias were lack of protection against contamination - mainly in individually randomised studies - and inadequate blinding of participants. The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was moderate. We downgraded the certainty because of the heterogeneity across studies and evidence of potential publication bias. Professional practice outcomes We conducted a narrative analysis for pharmacy worker behaviour due to high heterogeneity in the results. Health-promotion interventions probably improve pharmacy workers' behaviour (2944 participants; 9 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) when compared to no intervention. These studies typically assessed behaviour using a simulated patient (mystery shopper) methodology. Pharmacy user outcomes Health-promotion interventions probably lead to a slight improvement in health-related behaviours of pharmacy users when compared to usual treatment (SMD 0.43, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.72; I² = 89%; 10 trials; 2138 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). These interventions probably also lead to a slight improvement in intermediate clinical outcomes, such as levels of cholesterol or glycated haemoglobin, for pharmacy users (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.21; I² = 90%; 20 trials; 3971 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We identified no studies that evaluated the impact of health-promotion interventions on event-based clinical outcomes, such as stroke or myocardial infarction, or the psychological well-being of pharmacy users. Health-promotion interventions probably lead to a slight improvement in quality of life for pharmacy users (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.50; I²= 82%; 10 trials, 2687 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events No studies reported adverse events for either pharmacy workers or pharmacy users. Costs We found that health-promotion interventions are likely to be cost-effective, based on moderate-certainty evidence from five of seven studies that reported an economic evaluation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Health-promotion interventions in the community pharmacy context probably improve pharmacy workers' behaviour and probably have a slight beneficial effect on health-related behaviour, intermediate clinical outcomes, and quality of life for pharmacy users. Such interventions are likely to be cost-effective and the effects are seen across a range of clinical conditions and health-related behaviours. Nevertheless the magnitude of the effects varies between conditions, and more effective interventions might be developed if greater consideration were given to the theoretical basis of the intervention and mechanisms for effecting behaviour change.

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.

Effects of Pharmacy-Based Interventions on the Control and Management of Diabetes in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of pharmacy-based interventions on clinical outcomes associated with diabetes-related complications as well as on nonclinical outcomes in people with diabetes.

METHODS

We searched 4 main databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) for studies that considered clinical and nonclinical outcomes of pharmacy-based interventions among people with diabetes. Clinical outcomes included patients' mean reductions of glycated hemoglobin (A1C) levels and body mass indexes (BMIs). Nonclinical outcomes included patients' healthcare utilization and quality of life. A meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the pooled net mean difference in clinical outcomes between the pharmacy-intervention and the control groups.

RESULTS

Of the 44 studies included in the systematic review, 32 studies reported results from randomized controlled trials measuring reductions of A1C levels in 4,132 patients. Meta-analysis revealed that the standardized absolute mean difference in reduction of A1C levels from baseline to the time of the last follow up significantly favoured the pharmacy intervention versus the control group (0.96%; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.22; p<0.001). Of the studies, 13 reported BMI kg/m² in 1,827 patients. The estimation of standardized absolute mean difference in reduction of BMI unit calculated through meta-analysis was 0.61 (95% CI 0.20 to 1.03; p=0.000) in favour of the pharmacy-intervention group.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacy-based interventions have significant positive effects on controlling 2 major risks factors associated with diabetes-related complications: A1C levels and BMI. However, there is a dearth of evidence about the effects of pharmacy-based intervention on nonclinical outcomes, including healthcare utilization and quality of life.

Enablers and barriers for women with gestational diabetes mellitus to achieve optimal glycaemic control - a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework

Background

Glycaemic target recommendations vary widely between international professional organisations for women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Some studies have reported women’s experiences of having GDM, but little is known how this relates to their glycaemic targets. The aim of this study was to identify enablers and barriers for women with GDM to achieve optimal glycaemic control.

Methods

Women with GDM were recruited from two large, geographically different, hospitals in New Zealand to participate in a semi-structured interview to explore their views and experiences focusing on enablers and barriers to achieving optimal glycaemic control. Final thematic analysis was performed using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

Results

Sixty women participated in the study. Women reported a shift from their initial negative response to accepting their diagnosis but disliked the constant focus on numbers. Enablers and barriers were categorised into ten domains across the three study questions. Enablers included: the ability to attend group teaching sessions with family and hear from women who have had GDM; easy access to a diabetes dietitian with diet recommendations tailored to a woman’s context including ethnic food and financial considerations; free capillary blood glucose (CBG) monitoring equipment, health shuttles to take women to appointments; child care when attending clinic appointments; and being taught CBG testing by a community pharmacist. Barriers included: lack of health information, teaching sessions, consultations, and food diaries in a woman’s first language; long waiting times at clinic appointments; seeing a different health professional every clinic visit; inconsistent advice; no tailored physical activities assessments; not knowing where to access appropriate information on the internet; unsupportive partners, families, and workplaces; and unavailability of social media or support groups for women with GDM. Perceived judgement by others led some women only to share their GDM diagnosis with their partners. This created social isolation.

Conclusion

Women with GDM report multiple enablers and barriers to achieving optimal glycaemic control. The findings of this study may assist health professionals and diabetes in pregnancy services to improve their care for women with GDM and support them to achieve optimal glycaemic control.