Economic evaluations of telepharmacy services in non-cancer settings: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Telepharmacy is the provision of pharmacy services from a distance to a patient using telecommunications and other technologies. There has been limited research investigating the cost-effectiveness of telepharmacy services. OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive review and narrative synthesis of the available economic evidence on telepharmacy services in non-cancer settings. METHOD: A systematic literature search of four databases including PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and EconLit was undertaken to identify economic evaluations comparing telepharmacy services to standard pharmacy care. Abstracts and full texts were screened by two independent reviewers for inclusion against the eligibility criteria. Key economic findings were extracted from included articles to determine the cost-effectiveness of the reported telepharmacy services. RESULTS: The review included six studies; two were cost-minimisation analyses, three were cost effectiveness analyses (CEA) and one study conducted both a CEA and cost-utility analysis. Telepharmacy services predominantly relied upon telephone modes of communication, with three that used remote patient monitoring. These services managed a variety of clinical situations which included newly initiated antibiotics, antiretroviral therapy management, and medications for chronic conditions, as well as hypertension management. Articles were of relatively high reporting quality, scoring an average of 83% on the Consolidated Health Economics Reporting Standards checklist. Four of the six studies reported that telepharmacy was less costly than usual care, with two that reported telepharmacy as cost-effective to the healthcare system according to a specified cost-effectiveness threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this review demonstrates that there is emerging evidence that telepharmacy services can be cost-effective compared with standard care in non-cancer settings. Further research is needed to complement these findings, particularly reflecting the increased uptake of telehealth and telepharmacy services since the onset of the Coronavirus disease pandemic.

Is Australia's lack of national clinical leadership hampering efforts with the oral health policy agenda?

The landmark 2021 Resolution on Oral Health by the 74th World Health Assembly has elevated the importance of oral health into the global health policy agenda. This has led to the development and adoption of the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Strategy on Oral Health in 2022. It acknowledged the need to integrate oral health as part of universal health coverage (UHC), which is supported by national clinical leadership for oral health. Although Australia is a signatory WHO member state, it is yet to appoint a Commonwealth Chief Dental Officer to provide national clinical leadership. This commentary provides a background on the current issues on population oral health in Australia, an insight into the Australian oral healthcare system, and explores some of the challenges and learnings related to previous Commonwealth dental programs. This paper highlights why expertise in dental public health is required to steer national oral health policy that is focused on prevention and early intervention. A population oral health approach for UHC should be informed by evidence, prioritise and address oral health inequities, and be co-ordinated by national clinical leadership for oral health.