ABSTRACT
METHODS: A literature search was performed in January 23, 2018 at the Embase, LILACS, OpenThesis, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases through January 23, 2018, using keywords related to "asthma," "pharmacist," and "children." This systematic review followed the methodologic standards recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We included intervention studies on the effect of pharmacists' interventions on pediatric patients with asthma, performed in hospital or ambulatory care settings, with presenting process and outcome indicators as a result of pharmacists' interventions. The methodologic quality of the included studies was assessed independently by 2 researchers. The Cohen kappa index was used to measure the degree of agreement between the 2 investigators. RESULTS: The search yielded 3671 records, of which 5 were included in this review. Most of these studies were conducted in the United States (n = 2) and in outpatient clinics (n = 4). All studies described components of pharmacists' interventions. The most reported category concerning pharmacists' work process was the initial assessment of patients' conditions, with the assessment of outcomes (at baseline and follow-up) as the only category present in all studies. The most assessed outcomes at baseline were asthma control, emergency department visits, medication use and technique, and adherence to asthma therapy. At follow-up, emergency department visits were the most evaluated outcome (n = 2), and no study assessed economic outcomes. The average consultation time ranged from 20 to 45 minutes, and the number of encounters ranged from 2 to 3. CONCLUSION: This study highlighted the limited number of studies, most with low quality, on the impact of the pharmacist on pediatric asthma. The most assessed outcome was the number of emergency department visits, with positive results after interventions. Heterogeneity regarding assessed outcomes and work processes was noted, which limited comparison of the results and interventions.
Subject(s)
Asthma , Pharmacists , Ambulatory Care , Asthma/drug therapy , Child , Emergency Service, Hospital , Humans , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , United StatesABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Medication review (MR) is a pharmacy practice conducted in different settings that has a positive impact on patient health outcomes. In this context, systematic reviews on MR have restricted the assessment of this practice using criteria such as methodological quality, practice settings, and patient outcomes. Therefore, expanding research on this subject is necessary to facilitate the understanding of the effectiveness of MR and the comparison of its results. AIM: To examine the panorama of systematic reviews on pharmacist-participated MR in different practice settings. METHODS: A literature search was undertaken in Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS), Embase, PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases through January 2018 using keywords for "medication review", "systematic review", and "pharmacist". Two independents investigators screened titles, abstracts, full texts; assessed methodological quality; and, extracted data from the included reviews. RESULTS: Seventeen systematic reviews were included, of which sixteen presented low to moderate methodological quality. Most of reviews were conducted in Europe (n = 7), included controlled primary studies (n = 16), elderly patients (n = 9), and long-term care facilities (n = 8). Seven reviews addressed MR as an intervention and thirteen reviews cited collaboration between physicians and pharmacists in the practice of MR. In addition, thirteen terminologies for MR were used and the main objective was to identify and solve drug-related problems and/or optimize the drug use (n = 11). CONCLUSION: There is considerable heterogeneity in practice settings, population, definitions, terminologies, and approach of MR as well as poor description of patient care process in the systematic reviews. These facts may limit the comparison, summarization and understanding of the results of MR. Furthermore, the methodological quality of most systematic reviews was below ideal. Thus, international agreement on the MR process is necessary to assess, compare and optimize the quality of care provided.
