In Reviewing Patient Results How Do You Determine Patient Values Requiring Follow-up?

• Periodical List
• Br J Clin Pharmacol
• five.78(6); 2014 Dec
• PMC4256610

Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2014 Dec; 78(6): 1201–1216.

Patient participation in medication reviews is desirable but not show-based: a systematic literature review

Floor Willeboordse

¹Department of General Practice & Elderly Intendance Medicine, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Heart, Amsterdam, The netherlands

²NIVEL, (Netherlands Found for Health Services Research), Utrecht, The Netherlands

Jacqueline Thou Hugtenburg

³VU University Medical Center, Clinical Pharmacology and Chemist's shop, Amsterdam, Kingdom of the netherlands

François G Schellevis

^oneDepartment of General Exercise & Elderly Care Medicine, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Enquiry, VU Academy Medical Center, Amsterdam, Kingdom of the netherlands

^twoNIVEL, (Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research), Utrecht, The Netherlands

Petra J M Elders

¹Department of Full general Practice & Elderly Care Medicine, EMGO+ Constitute for Health and Care Research, VU Academy Medical Heart, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Received 2013 November half dozen; Accepted 2014 Apr 28.

Abstract

Aim

The aim of this systematic literature review is to investigate which types of patient participation in medication reviews take been good and what is known virtually the effects of patient participation within the medication review procedure.

Methods

A systematic literature review was performed in multiple databases using an extensive choice and quality assessment procedure.

Results

In total, 37 articles were included and about were assessed with a weak or moderate quality. In all studies patient participation in medication reviews was express to the level of information giving by the patient to the professional, mainly on actual drug use. Ix studies showed limited results of effects of patient participation on the identification of drug related problems.

Conclusions

The effects of patient participation are non frequently studied and poorly described in electric current literature. Nevertheless, involving patients tin can improve patients' knowledge, satisfaction and the identification of drug related bug. Patient involvement is at present limited to data sharing. The profit of college levels of patient communication and shared conclusion making is until now, not supported by testify of its effectiveness.

Keywords: drug related issues, medication reviews, patient participation, systematic literature review

Introduction

Patient participation is seen as the fundamental to modern health care and has been widely implemented in medical decision making and the direction of chronic diseases 1. The Earth Health Arrangement (WHO) programme Patients for Patient Rubber also emphasizes the central role patients should play in efforts to improve the quality and prophylactic of wellness intendance 2. Positive furnishings of a structured two style communication betwixt patients and health intendance professionals can exist increased patient knowledge, adherence, and satisfaction 3. With respect to pharmaceutical care, patient participation is thought to improve concordance betwixt the patient and the wellness care provider on the pharmacotherapy three. It is besides suggested that involvement of patients in pharmaceutical interventions, such as medication reviews, is important for motivation to change and long term effectiveness of pharmacotherapy four.

The Uk National Prescribing Heart defines a medication review every bit 'a structured, critical test of a patient's medicines with the objective of reaching an understanding with the patient about handling, optimizing the impact of medicines, and minimizing the number of drug related problems' 5. Drug related bug (DRPs) ofttimes occur in the elderly and tin be drug interactions, inefficacy of treatment, agin drug reactions, prescription errors simply besides non-compliance with treatment and user problems. The medication review definition includes patient participation in the medication review process and understanding betwixt patient, physician and about the treatment.

The definition of patient participation is not cocky-evident. Patient participation, patient collaboration, patient involvement, partnership, patient empowerment or patient-centred care, are used interchangeably ane. Street & Millay defined patient participation in medical consultations as 'the extent to which patients influence the content and the construction of the interaction besides as the health intendance provider's behavior and behaviour past, for example, request questions, descriptions of wellness experiences, expressing concerns, giving opinions, making suggestions and stating preferences' 6.

Thompson defined levels of patient involvement from the patient perspective vii. Parallel to a literature-based ranking of professional-determined levels of involvement, Thompson, on the basis of comprehensive qualitative data, defined several levels of patient-desired interest (Tabular arrayone). This follows the three decision making models, paternalistic, informed and professional-as-agent of Charles et al. eight Participation is seen as existence co-determined past patients and professionals and occurring but through the reciprocal relationships of dialogue and shared conclusion making. In a dialogue the patient gives information and there is consultation by the professional, in shared decision making the professional acts as agent. The model and definition of Thompson is used in this research 7.

Table 1

Levels of patient interest in wellness care consultations

Patient desired level	Patient determined	Co-determined (participation)	Professional person determined
4	Autonomous conclusion-making		Informed decision making
3		Shared decision making	Professional-as-amanuensis
2	Information giving	Dialogue	Consultation
1	Information seeking/receptive		Information giving
0	Non-involved		Exclusion

Furthermore, giving information during a dialogue betwixt patient and caregiver has a different purpose than shared or informed conclusion making. In the context of medication reviews, patient input is needed equally preparation for the medication review, to contain the patient'south perspective. The purpose of information giving by the caregiver is mainly educational. On the other hand there is the conclusion making procedure, where the purpose is to make a joint decision.

Active patient participation in medication reviews is increasingly recognized equally a prerequisite for a successful medication review and consequently in optimal pharmacotherapy and acknowledged in international and recent Dutch guidelines 5,9–xi.

In the field of treatment counselling, peculiarly for oncology, at that place is indeed evidence that the involvement of patients and shared-decision making led to more satisfied patients, ameliorate adherence to therapy and better health outcomes 12–xiv. However, little is known almost the furnishings of patient participation in medication reviews on patient outcomes. Earlier studying possible effects of patient participation, the unlike types of patient participation researched must be identified.

The aim of this systematic literature review is to investigate which types of patient participation in medication reviews have been expert and what is known near the effects of patient participation inside the medication review process. The following research questions were formulated:

1. Which types of patient participation in medication reviews have been researched?

2. What are the furnishings of patient participation in medication reviews on drug related problems (DRPs) and other patient outcomes?

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted post-obit the PRISMA argument 15. A literature search was performed in the databases PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library in July 2013. A search strategy was developed by the showtime author (FW) and an experienced information specialist (Appendix S1). The search strategy combined different synonyms and related terms of patient participation with synonyms of medication reviews. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for articles are displayed in Box 1. In addition, the references from all included manufactures were also examined for relevant articles.

Box ane Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria

• Original research AND;

• Medication review with any blazon of patient participation AND;

• Adult or elderly population.

Exclusion criteria

• No original research, editorials, letter of the alphabet to the editors, comments, conference abstracts;

• Single case studies;

• Study pattern manufactures, without any results;

• Medication review without any blazon of patient participation, care in which the patient does not give any information and is non involved at all;

• Insufficient description of the patient participation, unable to define the level by Thompson vii

• Child or adolescent population;

• Studies in the palliative care setting.

• Articles in other languages than English language or Dutch

Three types of medication reviews can be distinguished based on the information used: (1) clinical medication reviews are based on medication records, medical records and patient data, (two) concordance and compliance medication reviews are based on medication records and patient information, and (3) prescription reviews are based on medication records merely, so without patient data sixteen. In the present literature review only clinical medication reviews or concordance and compliance reviews 6 have been included. According to Thompson's model of patient participation (Table1), patient participation starts at the level of information giving to the wellness care professional past the patient or his carer 7.

Selection procedure

The choice process of relevant manufactures included 3 steps: (1) screening of title and abstract, (2) full text based selection and (3) quality assessment (Effigy1). References of selected articles were too screened for relevant articles and extra manufactures could be added on the ground of skillful opinion. Ii authors (FW, PJME) screened all 1257 titles and abstracts independently. In case of doubt, an commodity was included for full text review. The get-go 50 titles and abstracts were screened and discussed to accomplish agreement on interpretations, definitions and inclusion and exclusion criteria. Afterwards screening all titles and abstracts, consensus was reached in a consensus coming together for all disagreements. In total, 133 articles were selected for full text review. The measure of agreement between the reviewers, Cohen's kappa (κ) was calculated.

Flow diagram of selection procedure

The commencement author screened all 133 full text articles on inclusion and exclusion criteria co-ordinate to Box ane. In case of any doubt, the full text article was discussed with at to the lowest degree one other author. In total, 37 articles were selected for quality assessment and included in this literature review, of which one was obtained from the references of the selected manufactures, and i article was added on the footing of expert opinion.

Quality cess

Quality assessment was carried out independently by three authors (FW, PJME, JGH) for all 37 articles. One reviewer (FW) assessed all relevant full text manufactures and two other reviewers (PJME, JGH) both assessed half of the articles, independently of each other.

The complexity and heterogeneity of the manufactures for the first research question required a specific qualitative cess based on the description of information about patient participation and whether an evaluation was carried out. Mainly, the completeness of reporting was assessed, assuming a correlation with the quality of reporting and the quality of the report. For the second research question, once again articles were very heterogenic and studies were mainly of an observational or qualitative nature. Existing tools were used, with minimal adaptions, to assess the quality of the article. Iii checklists were used, dependent on the literature review objective and whether the results were quantitative or qualitative (Box ii).

Box 2 Checklists for quality assessment

1. Checklist for description and evaluation of patient participation: Qualitative assessment on capability of the description of patient participation and evaluation of patient participation. The following questions were included in the checklist, which consisted of ii sub ratings; description and evaluation of patient participation.

   1. Clarification of patient participation

      • Is there sufficient information to derive a level of participation?

      • Is there information on blazon of communication?

      • Is in that location data on which health care professional is involved?

   2. Evaluation of patient participation

      • The study describes how ofttimes patient participation is carried out according to protocol

      • The study evaluated the wellness care professional-patient advice

      • The report evaluated the patient input in the medication review

      • Information on time consumption of the patient participation

      • Information on the costs of patient participation

      • Data on other evaluation topics of patient participation Caption and verbal estimation of all questions were discussed among the reviewers. Weak, moderate and strong ratings were assigned to the articles based on the sub ratings. In total, all 30 quantitative manufactures were assessed with this checklist.

   3. Checklist for quantitative studies: Methodological quality of studies on the effects of patient participation. This checklist is based on the Effective Public Health Do Project (EPHPP) Quality Cess Tool 63. This tool has been judged suitable to be used in systematic literature reviews of effectiveness, had off-white inter-rater agreement in individual domain scoring and excellent understanding in final course assigned to among raters and has been reported to accept content and construct validity 64. The questions on blinding were not applicable for this topic. Ix manufactures were assessed with this checklist.

   4. Checklist for qualitative studies: Methodological quality of studies on the evaluation of patient participation. This checklist is based on the detailed questions of the CASP qualitative checklist. The CASP checklists accept been evaluated, pilot tested in workshops, including feedback and review of materials, using successively broader audiences. Weak, moderate and strong ratings were assigned based on the number of 'yes answers' 65. 7 qualitative articles were assessed with this checklist.

Potent, moderate or weak final ratings were given based on predefined criteria. Quality assessment tools were piloted with 10 articles by the reviewers and differences in assessment were discussed. Disagreements in final ratings were discussed with a fourth reviewer (FGS).

Data extraction and analyses

Data extraction was carried out for all included articles by the first author (FW) in prove tables. For every commodity, full general characteristics and the type of medication review were extracted. Secondly, the description of patient participation was extracted for four components, when available, as follows:

1. Level of participation according to Thompson 7 (meet Table1);

2. Type of information given by the patient for the medication review;

3. Kind of consultation by the professional to the patient on the medication;

4. Evaluation of the patient participation.

Qualitative studies are described separately in overview tables with the description and evaluation of the patient participation. When present, data on the effects of patient participation was collected, specifically on DRPs and possible other outcomes. All data were analyzed in a descriptive manner for the results section and summarized in overview tables.

Results

General characteristics of publications

The authors who reviewed all titles and abstracts, reached strong agreement (Cohen'due south κ = 0.73). General characteristics of all 37 included publications are presented in Tabular array2 17–53. All studies described medication reviews, but none of the studies was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on the effectiveness of patient participation. In total, 30 studies were of a quantitative nature with unlike study designs, 6 publications had qualitative designs. Half of the studies were carried out in Europe, mainly the UK, the Netherlands and Norway, the other one-half were mainly from the USA and Australia. Almost all studies were carried out in the elderly with a variety of risk factors for medication problems, such as polypharmacy, multi-morbidity, contempo infirmary admission or specific diseases. More than than a third of the quantitative studies were small calibration or pilot studies with less than 100 participants. The bulk of the medication reviews were carried out past pharmacists or pharmacists in cooperation with full general practitioners (GPs).

Table two

General characteristics of the included publications

Reference	Report design	Patient characteristics	Setting	MR carried out by
Leendertse et al. [33]	Open controlled	674 elderly, using ≥5 drugs, at risk for hospital admission	Home domicile in chief intendance	Pharmacists and GPs
Kilcup et al. [28]	Retrospective	494 elderly, at risk for hospital readmission	Home abode recently discharged from hospital	Pharmacists
Olsson et al. [39]	Randomized controlled	150 elderly, using ≥5 drugs	Home dwelling recently discharged from hospital	GPs
Akazawa et al. [17]	Prospective intervention	508 elderly	Dwelling house dwelling	Pharmacists
Kwint et al. [30]	Cross-exclusive	155 elderly, using ≥5 drugs	Home home visiting community pharmacists	Pharmacists and GPs
Elliot et al. [xix]	Prospective randomized	80 elderly, using ≥2 drugs	Home domicile referred to Aged Care Cess Teams	Pharmacists or GPs
Willoch et al. [l]	Prospective randomized	77 elderly rehabilitation patients, using ≥three drugs	Patients admitted to a rehabilitation ward	Clinical pharmacist
Stewart et al. [47]	Observational example series	219 adults	Ambulatory care patients	Pharmacists
Swain [48]	Prospective example series	56 elderly neurological patients	Ambulatory neurologic patients	Pharmacists
Sheridan et al. [45]	Qualitative	27 patients with ≥ane risk factors for drug problems	Independently living patients	Pharmacists
Lam [31]	Cantankerous-sectional	43 adults and elderly, with ≥1 chronic disease, using ≥4 drugs	Patients in an on-going RCT in pharmacies	Pharmacists
Niquille et al. [38]	Cross-sectional	85 elderly cardiovascular patients, using ≥ane cardiovascular drugs	Home dwelling outpatients visiting community pharmacies	Pharmacists
Granas et al. [21]	Retrospective evaluation	73 elderly, using ≥2 diabetic type Ii drugs	Diabetic blazon II patients visiting the pharmacy	Pharmacist
Hernandez et al. [24]	Observational	35 center-aged and elderly heart transplantation patients	Hospitalized centre transplantation patients	Pharmacist
Hugtenburg et al. [25]	Controlled intervention	715 elderly, using ≥5 drugs	Patients discharged from infirmary	Pharmacists
Karapinar-Carkit et al. [27]	Prospective observational	262 pulmonology patients, using ≥1 drugs	Patients discharged from the pulmonology ward	Pharmacists
Pindolia et al. [41]	Retrospective analysis	520 elderly, ≥2 chronic diseases, using ≥2 drugs	Primary care	Pharmacists
Latif et al. [32]	Qualitative	Purposeful sample of 54 adult and elderly	Patients counselled at community pharmacies	Pharmacists
Moultry et al. [34]	Cross-sectional	30 elderly, sixty% is using ≥7 drugs	Patients identified for medication management services	Pharmacists
Bissell et al. [52]	Qualitative	49 coronary heart illness patients	Full general practice patients recruited within an RCT	Pharmacists
MEDMAN [53]	Randomized controlled	1493 coronary heart disease patients	General do patients	Pharmacists
Salter et al. [42]	Qualitative	29 elderly	Hospitalized patients recruited inside an RCT	Pharmacists
Nguyen et al. [37]	Prospective uncontrolled	24 elderly, ≥i gamble factor for medication misadventure	Patients discharged from hospital	Pharmacists
Viktil et al. [49]	Prospective multicentre	96 hospitalized elderly, using hateful 4.7 drugs	Hospitalized patients; internal medicine and rheumatology	Pharmacists
Sorensen et al. [21]	Randomized controlled	400 patients with ≥1 risk gene for inappropriate medication use	Customs abode patients (rural and urban)	Pharmacists and GPs
Griffiths et al. [22]	Pre-mail service examination + cross-sectional	24 elderly; diminished knowledge/management of medication	Patients receiving regular community nursing intendance	Community nurses
Petty et al. [twoscore]	Qualitative	xviii elderly, using mean five.5 drugs	Ambulatory patients attention a medicine review clinic	Pharmacists
Naunton et al. [36]	Randomized controlled	121 elderly, using ≥4 drugs	Discharged from hospital	Pharmacists
Gilbert et al. [20]	Implementation trial	1000 patients at risk for DRPs	Community domicile patients identified past GPs	Pharmacists and GPs
Zermansky et al. [51]	Randomized controlled	1188 elderly using ≥ane drugs	Community home patients visiting GPs	Pharmacists
Jameson et al. [26]	Randomized controlled	168 patients, using ≥5 drugs	Convalescent care patients	Pharmacists and GPs
Krska et al. [29]	Randomized controlled	332 elderly, with ≥two chronic diseases, using ≥4 drugs	Ambulatory care patients	Pharmacists
Sellors et al. [44]	Randomized controlled	132 elderly, using ≥4 drugs	Patients visiting GPs	Pharmacists
Grymonpre et al. [23]	Prospective randomized controlled	135 elderly, using ≥2 drugs	Community dwelling convalescent care patients	Pharmacists
Chen et al. [18]	Qualitative	25 patients referred for medication review	Patients from community pharmacies and GPs	Pharmacists
Nathan et al. [35]	Qualitative	xx elderly or middle-aged, using long term medication	Patients who had 3–9 months ago a medication review	Pharmacists
Schneider et al. [43]	Prospective uncontrolled and qualitative	39 elderly, using hateful vi drugs	Housebound patients, referred by GP	Pharmacists

Of the 30 articles assessed with the checklist for quantitative studies on description and evaluation of patient participations, 20 articles had a concluding moderate rating, five a stiff rating and v a weak rating. All only one of the qualitative studies were assessed with a strong rating. Of the nine articles that were assessed with the quality cess for effects of patient participation, five articles had a moderate and 4 a weak rating.

Type of patient participation

The blazon of patient participation in medication reviews has been summarized in Tableiii for quantitative studies and in Tabular array4 for qualitative studies. Overall, the description of the involvement of patients in the medication review procedure in all publications was minimal. Only studies in which the patient gave data to the professional (level 2 in Tableone) were found.

Table three

Type of patient participation in medication reviews – quantitative studies

Reference	Type of advice and by whom	Information given by patient to professional	Consultation by professional	Evaluation of patient participation	Quality cess
Leendertse et al. 33	Interview by pharmacist, follow-up of plan by GP and follow-upwardly in time past pharmacist	Actual drug use DRPs that involved the patient (not farther defined)	Follow-up evaluation of the brash pharmacotherapy changes as agreed with the patient in the pharmaceutical intendance plan	–	Moderate
Kilcup et al. 28	Phone interview with chemist	Actual drug use Unexplained discrepancies Drug related problems	Opportunity to ask questions on: understanding of medication how medication intended to work mutual safety concerns how to take medication as intended	–	Moderate
Olsson et al. 39	Abode visit by study nurse	Bodily drug utilise Compliance	Written drug regimen was provided to enable patient participation	–	Weak
Akazawa et al. 17	Visit at pharmacy (brownish bag method)	Bodily drug apply Reason for choosing OTCs Adherence Storage	Appropriate feedback Potential condom bug	>90% had ≥1 positive responses (ease concerns on interaction or ADE or duplications, get confirmation, amend understanding, others) 45% had ≥one negative responses (tedious to bring, time, insufficient advice, others)	Moderate
Kwint et al. 30	Dwelling house-visit by community pharmacist	Actual drug utilize	Non described	–	Strong
Elliot et al. 19	Domicile-visit by clinical pharmacist or GP	Bodily drug use	Not described	Pharmacist home visit is more feasible than past GP Satisfied patients with home-visit	Potent
Willoch et al. 50	Interview with standardized form during hospital stay and follow-upwards dwelling visit past clinical pharmacist	Bodily drug use Medication knowledge Adverse drug effects Efficacy Post-discharge effects	Targeted counselling talk on medications and medication changes by pharmacist	–	Moderate
Stewart et al. 47	Interview at care centre by (educatee-)chemist	Actual drug apply	Not described	–	Weak
Swain 48	Interview at dispensary by chemist	Actual drug use	Education and counselling on medication while ensuring rubber and effectiveness	97% of patients was satisfied with consult Time: interview mean 38 min	Moderate
Lam 31	Web-cam enabled video-conferencing by pharmacist	Actual drug use Sensation of treatment goals Perception of disease control and health intendance needs Adherence (questionnaire)	Answering of questions Patient-centred pedagogy Medication and life style recommendations Instructions and confirmation of understanding	All respondents agreed or strongly agreed that answers to their questions were helpful and they had better medication cognition. Fourth dimension: interview 45–60 min	Moderate
Niquille et al. 38	Interview at the pharmacy by community pharmacist	Medication experiences Medication knowledge/skills Adherence Attitude towards prevention	Not described	–	Weak
Granas et al. 21	Interview at the pharmacy by customs pharmacist	Actual drug utilize Compliance bug	Medication advice on newspaper form	98% of patients said they benefited from the review Time: median consultation 60 min	Moderate
Hernandez et al. 24	Interview in hospital with standardized service questionnaire by infirmary chemist	Actual drug use Adherence Possible allergies Adverse drug effects	Printed: prescription, schedule, indications, (contra-) interactions, ADE Drugs and usage recommendations (knowledge of affliction, treatment and ADE)	All respondents could ask (almost) all questions All respondents rated the treatment equally (very) skilful Fourth dimension: counselling hateful 26 min	Moderate
Hugtenburg et al. 25	Counsel at home, in chemist's shop or by phone past pharmacist	Actual drug utilize	Printed: daily medication intake scheme Counseling	40% of the patients mentioned a medication problem or raised questions	Moderate
Karapinar-Carkit et al. 27	Counselling at discharge by pharmaceutical consultants	Actual drug employ Because continuing need Practical problems Adverse drug effects Forgetting of medication	Educational activity	–	Moderate
Pindolia et al. 41	Telephone contact by pharmacist and/or GP	Bodily drug utilise Determine wellness goals Concerns about handling	Explain the drug alter(s) In-depth counselling on medications/health Follow-up instructions (laboratory, GP visit, drugs)	90% establish the phone word convenient and were provided with the necessary education Time: ii.5 h/patient, mainly by pharmacist	Strong
Moultry et al. 34	Dwelling house-visit by consultant pharmacist	Actual drug use Medical history (self-reported) Allergies Adverse furnishings	Drug information (verbally and written) Action plan Emergency medication kit and pedagogy	Near all patients were satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the service All patient felt more knowledgeable after home visit Time: Home visit: xv–60 min	Moderate
MEDMAN 53	Consultation co-ordinate to pharmacist-determined patient need	Actual drug use Compliance Lifestyle and social support	Non described	Not described	Weak
Nguyen et al. 37	Home visit ii days later belch by pharmacist	Actual drug use Medication knowledge	Education on medication knowledge	In 73/98 of identified DRPs the information given past the patient was new to the GP	Weak
Viktil et al. 49	Interview at hospital by chemist	Actual drug apply Medication handling (adherence, cognition, practical, efficacy)	Not described	But 50% of intended interviews were conducted. Feasibility was difficult. Time: Interview mean 20.3 min (range 5–60 min)	Moderate
Sorensen et al. 46	Home visit by pharmacist and consult with GP	Bodily drug utilise	Not described	–	Moderate
Griffiths et al. 22	Interview at unknown location past community nurse	Actual drug use Allergies Side effects	Educational support (Medilist) Compliance aid support.	–	Moderate
Naunton et al. 36	Dwelling house visit 5 days after discharge by chemist	Adherence Data to identify DRPs	Education (medications and compliance) Compliance devices, when needed	94% were satisfied with the home visit Time: visit median 50 min	Moderate
Gilbert et al. twenty	Home visit by community pharmacist and follow-up past GP	Actual drug use Knowledge on medication Demonstration of administration devices	Dosing instructions Education Assisted with dose administration Informed selection is mentioned	In 31 cases the patient refused to follow-up the advice on which the GP and pharmacist agreed upon	Moderate
Zermansky et al. 51	Dwelling visit community pharmacist and follow-upward by GP	Actual drug use Ostend indications notwithstanding valid Adherence Unadressed bug	Not described, however negotiation with the patient is mentioned in the methods	Time: mean 20 min for pharmacist	Stiff
Jameson et al. 26	1. telephone questionnaire 2. Interview in GP office by GP 3. Counselling by GP	Actual drug utilize Understanding of medication	Explain drug changes Counselling or instructions on medication and lifestyle, when needed	70% of consult group patients said that they benefited from the consult Time: Face-to-face interviews: 45–60 min	Potent
Krska et al. 29	Home visit by pharmacist	Actual drug use Effectiveness	Not described	–	Moderate
Sellors et al. 44	Interview at GP part by pharmacist	Actual drug apply Adherence (questionnaire)	Not described	–	Moderate
Grymonpre et al. 23	Home visit by trained staff or volunteers Patient counselling by doc	Actual drug use Daily routine Adherence Adverse drug events Allergies and intolerances Other possible DRPs	Counselling with written information with physician at practice or at home Follow-up with pharmacist at dwelling house to place and resolve new issues.	–	Moderate
Schneider et al. 43	Habitation visit by community pharmacist	Bodily drug use Medication knowledge Medication management and adherence (incl. hoarding) Agin drug effects Practical problems	When needed, advice on medication and follow-up visit	From qualitative interviews several benefits were identified for patients, GPs and pharmacists due to the habitation visits Time: Habitation visit mean 56 min.	Moderate

Table 4

Type of patient participation and evaluation in medication reviews – qualitative studies

Reference	Type of communication and past whom	Information given by patient to professional person	Consultation by professional	Procedure or evaluation outcomes	Quality cess
Sheridan et al. 45	Interview in pharmacy by pharmacist	Actual drug use Adherence Side effects Effectiveness Storage Use of equipment	Education	All but ane patient were happy with the dwelling visit Nearly all respondents felt that they had enough time to discuss relevant questions, and were responded adequately Patients did not report specific health gains directly from the MUR. Nonetheless, knowledge and comfortable to discuss wellness or medication issues in the futurity with pharmacists were mentioned Pharmacists did believe that the MUR could have improved outcomes for patients The consultation lasted <30 min–1 h	Stiff
Latif et al. 32	Domicile visits by chemist	Actual drug use Medication noesis	Education	40–threescore% of the patients did not ask any questions during the MUR Trivial room for open up questions, OTC discussion offered more scope for participation	Strong
Bissel et al. 52	Consultation with pharmacist	Actual drug use Compliance Lifestyle and social back up	Not described	Majority expressed ambivalent views nearly the service, overall cautiously more positive than negative Helpful reassurance on affliction and therapy Positive about the consultation with the chemist merely reservations virtually them making recommendations. Many regard the doctor equally the wellness professional in charge. Patient felt more knowledgeable on their medicines	Potent
Salter et al. 42	Dwelling house visits past pharmacist	Actual drug employ	Advice, information, and teaching on medicines	Communication was ofttimes resisted or rejected and created interactional difficulties and awkward moments Well-nigh no patient initiated requests for communication or data Calling on the higher authority of the doctor was prevalent Consultation time: mean 45 min	Strong
Petty et al. 40	Interview in clinic by clinical pharmacist	Bodily drug employ Medication issues	Caption, not further defined	Some patients welcomed the opportunity to have questions answered Health intendance professionals must judge who needs more detailed information and who does not Not everybody accepted the communication given by the chemist	Stiff
Chen et al. eighteen	Interview in chemist's by clinical pharmacist	Effectiveness perception Side furnishings Adherence	Not described	Better understanding of patient's perspective, would facilitate concordance Consultation duration ranged from fifteen–90 min	Moderate
Nathan et al. 35	Interview in pharmacy past chemist	Actual drug utilize	Non described	Expression of satisfaction and gratitude Better understanding of medicines Re-assurement (for patients) that they were taking medicines correctly Learning things nigh medications that they not knew before	Strong

Of the 37 publications, 14 studies included dwelling house visits, 14 included patient interviews at the pharmacy or in the GP function, four studies involved patients during or at discharge of their hospital stay and 5 studies used mixed or other methods to involve the patient. Communication with the patient, peculiarly as preparation before the medication review, was well-nigh often carried out past the pharmacist or jointly past the pharmacist and GP. Furthermore, one 3rd of the studies mentioned the duration of the patient contact with the health care professional. The time investment ranged between 15–ninety min per patient.

Data exchange between patient and health care professional person

In all studies patients provided information about their actual drug use. Additional information included knowledge most the medicines they used, adverse drug events, allergies, adherence and compliance, perceived effectiveness, practical or management problems, lifestyle and social support related, hoarding problems and attitude towards certain medicines.

Health care professionals counselled patients often nearly proposed changes in medication, education on their medication, lifestyle or wellness problems and gave follow-upwards instructions for medication monitoring, laboratory tests or new visits.

Evaluation of patient participation

In some studies the involvement of patients during medication reviews was evaluated. Information on actual drug use oft added new information to the records, eastward.g. on prescribed drugs, over the counter (OTC) drugs, compliance, adherence or other drug user problems 23,24,27,thirty,37,48. Several studies carried out a satisfaction survey among patients who participated in medication review programmes. The majority of the patients were satisfied with the review services and indicated to have increased noesis and were able to enquire questions about their medications. Two British qualitative studies 38,48 observed that patients were not actively involved in the consultations with pharmacists for their medication review and asked very few questions. Furthermore, in three qualitative studies 40,42,52, patients called on the college authority of the GP or specialist above the pharmacists to discuss their medicines (Table4).

Effects of patient participation

The effects of patient participation in medication reviews on DRPs or other patient outcomes have been described in ix studies (Table5) 20,26,27,29–31,39,49,50. Of all DRPs identified, 27% to 73% were establish as a result of a patient interview. Many of these problems would not have been identified if only medication or medical records were used. In 2 Dutch studies 27,xxx, the DRPs identified in the interviews were as well assigned a higher priority or the recommendations based on patient information were more often implemented than problems identified through medication records or in the medical history. Some other studies mentioned the type of DRPs, which was interpreted as originating from the patient interview 21,23,24,37. However, these results are not included in this literature review to answer the effects of research questions, because it was not described how and if patients' interest led to these effects. The studies that showed effects on DRPs were assessed with college quality on description and evaluation of patient participation than studies that reported no upshot information.

Table five

Effectiveness of patient participation in medication reviews – quantitative studies

Reference	Type of patient participation	Outcomes	Quality cess
Olsson et al. 39	Data giving on actual drug apply and compliance, during a home visit from a study nurse. Patients were enabled to participate, they received a current and comprehensive medication record	No difference in QoL between the group that received a medication record to enable participation and the grouping that did not But 8 of 21 returned medication records were used, with accompanying messages list forgetfulness, feeling unaccustomed to participating and fear of causing trouble	Weak
Kwint et al. 30	Information giving on actual drug employ, during a dwelling house visit from a community pharmacist	27% of all identified DRPs were identified through patient interview and were assigned a higher priority DRPs identified during patient interviews were more than oftentimes assigned a high priority, associated with recommendations for drug change and were implemented recommendations for drug change	Moderate
Willoch et al. fifty	Information giving on actual drug use, noesis, adverse events, and efficacy during hospital stay and follow-upwards dwelling house visit past clinical pharmacist on mail service-discharge effects	30% of all DRPs at admission were identified through patient interviews, mainly medication nautical chart errors, compliance problems and adverse drug reactions Many DRPs identified during the home visits were compliance problems. 20% of DRPs were related to patient knowledge and skills (derived from home visit)	Weak
Lam 31	Information giving through web-cam enabled video-conferencing on actual drug utilise, awareness of treatment goals and adherence	The virtually prevalent patient-centred DRP was lifestyle-related non-adherence (twoscore/43–93%). Non-adherence to medications was nowadays in 32/43 (74.4%), with forgetfulness as most oftentimes cited	Weak
Karapinar-Carkit et al. 27	Information giving on bodily drug utilize and DRPs, at a counselling at discharge by chemist consultants	With patient counselling, 8.eight% more patients benefited in correction of discrepancies (interventions in 72.5% vs. 63.seven%). 9.one% more patients benefited in optimizing the pharmacotherapy (interventions in 76.3% vs. 67.2%)	Moderate
Viktil et al. 49	Information giving on actual drug use and drug(problem) handling during an interview with the pharmacist in the infirmary	39.nine% of total DRPs were found during the interview, significantly more than DRPs were establish in the interviewed group vs. the not-interviewed group	Moderate
Gilbert et al. 20	Information giving on actual drug use and noesis with the purpose of an informed selection during a home-visit by community pharmacist and follow-upward by GP.	On boilerplate ii.5 DRPs were identified, of which twenty% related to patient noesis and skills	Weak
Jameson et al. 26	Data giving on adverse events and the understanding of medications during a telephone interview, contiguous interview with GP and follow-upwardly counselling by the GP.	73% of the interventions were recognized only through patient interview (unplanned event of the study).	Moderate
Krska et al. 29	Information giving on actual drug use and effectiveness during abode-visit past pharmacists.	PCIs were identified in 29.4% of the cases during the patient interview. Of all the PCIs, 21% were resolved by information institute in notes and 8.five% in patient interviews	Moderate

Ane study found no difference in quality of life after the medication review betwixt patients who were enabled to participate and control patients. However, in this study very few patients actively participated in the medication review process and the sample size was too modest to assess quality of life differences 39.

There was no departure in effects or level of patient involvement betwixt different care settings, e.g. hospital or community, or for specific patient groups vs. less specific, general polypharmacy or multi-morbidity patients.

Discussion

The type of patient participation unremarkably practiced in the studies reviewed was information giving and was often the starting betoken in a medication review. Other types of patient participation were not establish. The data given by the patient was mainly on actual drug utilize and adherence problems. In nigh studies the professional person was a chemist who interviewed or counselled patients at habitation, in the pharmacy or in the hospital. The involvement of patients led to identification of more drug related issues. These DRPs were considered more relevant, had a higher priority and handling recommendations based on these issues had a meliorate implementation rate. Both patients and professionals indicated that they were satisfied with the patient participation. Some studies suggested increased medication knowledge and patients' understanding.

The effects of patient participation are inappreciably studied and poorly described in the current literature. We found no evidence that patient interest in medication reviews went further than information commutation during dialogues or interviews between patients and caregiver. It remains unclear how patients participate in subsequent stages of the medication review with regard to the sharing of information, determination making, counselling and implementation of possible medication changes.

The exact contribution of patient participation to the effects of the written report was by and large unclear. Studies with college quality oft reported effects of patient participation on the identification of DRPs. Weaker quality studies reported good patient satisfaction, increased medication cognition and patient agreement. These outcomes, however, were measured in surveys with low response rates, which could have led to response bias.

In national and international guidelines, patient participation in a medication review process is a prerequisite for a successful medication review five,10,11. However, guideline recommendations to involve patients are not based on show but on prevailing societal considerations and adept opinions 11. Apparently, there is a discrepancy between patient centredness and show-based care. Patient participation is a concept that already arises from the 1960s, when the consumer protection rights were introduced in the Us Congress; 'the correct to safety, the correct to be informed, the correct to choose and the right to be heard' 54. This also implicates that patient participation is more a right and largely justified on humane reasons than an evidence-based ways to improve treatment outcomes, as has been questioned before 55,56.

The use of medication reviews, particularly with active patient involvement, as an intervention to better treatment results is a fairly recent development in pharmaceutical care. This may partly explain the absence of good quality literature clearly describing involvement of patients in medication reviews and its furnishings. Furthermore, implementing patient participation is strongly dependent on overcoming wellness care professionals' obstacles such as time constraints and finances, societal norms and the tendency of caregiver to maintain control 1. Specially, the time investment to involve patients in the medications reviews process is considerable and, hence, costly. In this literature review, information technology varied betwixt xv–90 min for patient interviews aimed only to inform caregivers on bodily drug utilize and experiences.

Every bit compared with younger patients, the elderly are known to participate less in intendance and self-management and take dissimilar preferences for interest and conclusion making 57. This literature review consisted of studies about solely in elderly subjects, which are the main target grouping for medication reviews. This means that the patient grouping described in this literature study is already less prone to participate and to a lesser extent wants to be involved in medical decisions. Not all patients want to or can be involved and the extent to which involvement is useful may depend on age, disease severity, acuteness of the affliction, cognitive state, comorbidity, health literacy, socio-economical condition, type and impact of decision, attitudes towards medication and prevention, patient–professional relationships and other personal preferences 1,7. Previous inquiry also indicated that patients have a desire to participate in the consultation, but do not e'er feel a demand to exist involved in medical decision and patient involvement was limited to information sharing 56,58–sixty. This means that nosotros may take to reconsider how and which patients should exist involved in a medication review.

Data on the gain of patient participation in terms of effects is scarce and existing literature has a weak quality. The testify for the effects on clinical patient outcomes such as quality of life, hospitalization and mortality of medication reviews themselves is express 61. Patient participation in consultations has been suggested to improve, for example, adherence, long-term effects of pharmacotherapy and thereby indirect patient outcomes 3,4. Even so no evidence was found for this in the context of medication reviews.

At that place are some limitations to discuss. The taxonomy by Thompson vii used in this study is not very discriminative. Other in-between combinations may exist applicable. However others also recognize that labelling these would non be very useful since one e'er deals with specific situational contexts 62. This emphasizes the complication of studying patient participation.

Although an extensive search strategy in four literature databases was used and an additional hand search in reference lists was performed, relevant articles may have been missed.

The complexity of patient participation in medication reviews makes it hard to design comparative studies. Moreover, information technology is difficult to measure the specific contribution of patient participation on treatment outcomes. To written report whether, for example, shared decision making is carried out in exercise, a qualitative study design may be needed. With qualitative observational enquiry i could report whether patients really influence the content and construction of the interaction of a consultation or decision, like Street & Millays' definition of patient participation half dozen.

To study whether patient participations also results in effects, future enquiry should focus on designs, possibly comparative, with a mixed character with relevant, quantitative patient outcomes such equally adherence, quality of life, adverse drug events and patient satisfaction and qualitatively on the level of involvement of patients past observing consultations.

Determination

To conclude, patient participation in medication reviews is important to proceeds data about patient preferences and relevant drug related problems. Patient participation is not common and not always desirable in determination making in the last phase of a medication review. Every bit there is often no clear determination as with treatment counselling and the target grouping for medication reviews, the vulnerable elderly, exercise not always have the wish to be involved in the actual decision. Patient satisfaction and knowledge seem to better when patients are more involved, however no effects in wellness outcomes take been observed.

Patient participation in medication reviews is desirable and may better patient outcomes, but is presently based on expert opinions and ethical considerations for modern wellness care, rather than on evidence. Considering the time investment and limited bear witness of patient participation in medication reviews efficient methods targeted at the right patients seem advisable. The turn a profit of higher levels of patient advice and shared decision making is, until now, not supported past evidence of its effectiveness. Since patient involvement express to data sharing seems more appropriate, efficient methods to involve patients in medication reviews are topics for future enquiry and practise innovations. In this way, clinical medication reviews volition become more than feasible for GPs and pharmacists.

Practice implications

Our results may have potential implications for pharmacists, GPs or other physicians who perform medication reviews. Patient participation at the level of information giving may improve information of the professionals and identification of DRPs and may contribute to improved patient knowledge, understanding and patient satisfaction. Physicians and pharmacists have to keep in mind that interest of patients during decision making is not primarily evidence-based to ameliorate the outcomes of both medication review outcomes as well equally patient outcomes and is not e'er needed in this type of decision. Based on the literature, information giving participation during medication reviews improves the medication review process and identification of drug related problems. However prove regarding the effectiveness of college levels are lacking and might not be needed at all times and at all costs.

Writer contributions

FW, JGH, FGS and PJME designed the written report and research questions. FW and PJME performed the title and abstruse screening and FW performed the full text choice. FW, JGH, FGS and PJME performed the quality assessment and FW carried out the information extraction. FW, JGH, FGS and PJME prepared the manuscript.

Competing Interests

All authors take completed the Unified Competing Involvement form at http://world wide web.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on asking from the corresponding author) and declare FW had support from a research grant by the Dutch Organization for Wellness Research and Evolution (ZonMw) for the submitted work, no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted piece of work.

The authors give thanks the Dutch Organization for Wellness Enquiry and Development (ZonMw) for fiscal support and I. Jansma for help with the search strategy.

Supporting Information

Boosted Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this commodity at the publisher's web-site:

Appendix S1

PubMed search strategy

References

• Longtin Y, Sax H, Leape LL, Sheridan SE, Donaldson Fifty, Pittet D. Patient participation: current knowledge and applicability to patient safety. Mayo Clin Proc. 2010;85:53–62. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Earth Health Organization (WHO) Patients for patients prophylactic. Last update 2013. Available at http://www.who.int/patientsafety/patients_for_patient/en/ (final accessed 19 Apr 2013)
• Stevenson FA, Cox K, Britten N, Dundar Y. A systematic review of the research on communication betwixt patients and health care professionals about medicines: the consequences for concordance. Health Expect. 2004;7:235–245. [PMC gratuitous commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Geurts MM, Talsma J, Brouwers JR, de Gier JJ. Medication review and reconciliation with cooperation betwixt chemist and general practitioner and the benefit for the patient: a systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;74:xvi–33. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Task Forcefulness on Medicines Partnership and The National Collaborative Medicines Management Services Program. Room for Review: A Guide to Medication Review: the Agenda for Patients, Practitioners and Managers. London: Medicines Partnership; 2002. [Google Scholar]
• Street RL, Jr, Millay B. Analyzing patient participation in medical encounters. Health Commun. 2001;thirteen:61–73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Thompson AG. The meaning of patient involvement and participation in health care consultations: a taxonomy. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64:1297–1310. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least ii to tango) Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:681–692. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bezreh T, Laws MB, Taubin T, Rifkin DE, Wilson IB. Challenges to doctor-patient advice virtually medication use: a window into the skeptical patient's earth. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2012;6:11–18. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Pharmaceutical Society of Australia Ltd. 2011. Guidelines for pharmacists providing Abode Medicines Review (HMR) services.
• Nederlands Huisarts Genootschap (NHG) 2012. Multidisciplinaire richtlijn Polyfarmacie bij ouderen. Utrecht.
• Martinez LS, Schwartz JS, Freres D, Fraze T, Hornik RC. Patient-clinician information engagement increases treatment decision satisfaction among cancer patients through feeling of being informed. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77:384–390. [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Wilson SR, Strub P, Buist Every bit, Knowles SB, Lavori PW, Lapidus J, Vollmer WM the Gunkhole Study Grouping. Shared treatment decision making improves adherence and outcomes in poorly controlled asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010;181:566–577. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Greenfield South, Kaplan S, Ware JE., Jr Expanding patient involvement in care. Effects on patient outcomes. Ann Intern Med. 1985;102:520–528. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097. [PMC costless commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Clyne West, Blenkinsopp A, Seal R The National Prescribing Center. 2008. A guide to Medication Review. Medicines Partnership Plan.
• Akazawa M, Nomura One thousand, Kusama M, Igarashi A. Drug utilization reviews by community pharmacists in Japan: identification of potential safety concerns through the Chocolate-brown Bag Program. Value Health Reg Issues. 2012;1:98–104. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Chen J, Britten North. 'Strong medicine': an analysis of pharmacist consultations in primary care. Fam Pract. 2000;17:480–483. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Elliott RA, Martinac K, Campbell Due south, Thorn J, Woodward MC. Chemist-led medication review to identify medication-related bug in older people referred to an Anile Care Cess Team: a randomized comparative study. Drugs Crumbling. 2012;29:593–605. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Gilbert AL, Roughead EE, Beilby J, Mott K, Barratt JD. Collaborative medication direction services: improving patient care. Med J Aust. 2002;177:189–192. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Granas AG, Berg C, Hjellvik V, Haukereid C, Kronstad A, Blix HS, Kilhovd B, Viktil KK, Horn AM. Evaluating categorisation and clinical relevance of drug-related bug in medication reviews. Pharm World Sci. 2010;32:394–403. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Griffiths R, Johnson Grand, Piper K, Langdon R. A nursing intervention for the quality employ of medicines by elderly community clients. Int J Nurs Pract. 2004;x:166–176. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Grymonpre RE, Williamson DA, Montgomery PR. Impact of a pharmaceutical intendance model for non-instutionalised elderly: results of a randomised, controlled trial. Int J Pharm Pract. 2001;9:235–241. [Google Scholar]
• Hernandez MJ, Montero HM, Font NI, Domenech ML, Merino SV, Poveda Andres JL. Cess of a reconciliation and data program for heart transplant patients. Farm Hosp. 2010;34:ane–eight. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hugtenburg JG, Borgsteede SD, Beckeringh JJ. Medication review and patient counselling at discharge from the infirmary past community pharmacists. Pharm World Sci. 2009;31:630–637. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Jameson JP, VanNoord GR. Pharmacotherapy consultation on polypharmacy patients in convalescent care. Ann Pharmacother. 2001;35:835–840. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Karapinar-Carkit F, Borgsteede SD, Zoer J, Smit HJ, Egberts AC, van den Bemt PM. Effect of medication reconciliation with and without patient counseling on the number of pharmaceutical interventions amidst patients discharged from the hospital. Ann Pharmacother. 2009;43:1001–1010. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kilcup M, Schultz D, Carlson J, Wilson B. Postdischarge chemist medication reconciliation: impact on readmission rates and fiscal savings. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) 2013;53:78–84. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Krska J, Cromarty JA, Arris F, Jamieson D, Hansford D, Duffus PR, Downie Yard, Seymour DG. Chemist-led medication review in patients over 65: a randomized, controlled trial in chief care. Age Ageing. 2001;30:205–211. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kwint HF, Faber A, Gussekloo J, Bouvy ML. The contribution of patient interviews to the identification of drug-related problems in abode medication review. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2012;37:674–680. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lam A. Practice innovations: delivering medication therapy management services via videoconference interviews. Consult Pharm. 2011;26:764–773. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Latif A, Pollock K, Boardman HF. The contribution of the Medicines Use Review (MUR) consultation to counseling do in community pharmacies. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;83:336–344. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Leendertse AJ, de Koning GH, Goudswaard AN, Belitser SV, Verhoef One thousand, de Gier HJ, Egberts TCG, van den Bemt PMLA. Preventing hospital admissions past reviewing medication (PHARM) in primary intendance: an open up controlled study in an elderly population. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2013;38:379–387. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Moultry AM, Poon IO. Perceived value of a home-based medication therapy direction program for the elderly. Consult Pharm. 2008;23:877–885. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Nathan A, Goodyer L, Lovejoy A, Savage I. Patients' view of the value of 'brown bag' medication reviews. Int J Pharm Pract. 2000;viii:298–304. [Google Scholar]
• Naunton M, Peterson GM. Evaluation of domicile-based follow-up of loftier-risk elderly patients discharged from hospital. J Pharm Pract Res. 2003;33:176–182. [Google Scholar]
• Nguyen A, Yu One thousand, Shakib Southward, Doecke CJ, Boyce Chiliad, March K, Anderson BA, Gilbert AL, Angley MT. Classification of findings in the home medicines reviews of mail service-discharge patients at risk of medication misadventure. J Pharm Pract Res. 2007;37:111–114. [Google Scholar]
• Niquille A, Bugnon O. Human relationship between drug-related problems and wellness outcomes: a cross-sectional study amid cardiovascular patients. Pharm World Sci. 2010;32:512–519. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Olsson IN, Runnamo R, Engfeldt P. Drug treatment in the elderly: an intervention in principal care to raise prescription quality and quality of life. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2012;30:iii–9. [PMC costless commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lilliputian DR, Knapp P, Raynor DK, House AO. Patients' views of a pharmacist-run medication review clinic in full general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2003;53:607–613. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Pindolia VK, Stebelsky 50, Romain TM, Luoma 50, Nowak SN, Gillanders F. Mitigation of medication mishaps via medication therapy management. Ann Pharmacother. 2009;43:611–620. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Salter C, Kingdom of the netherlands R, Harvey I, Henwood 1000. 'I haven't even phoned my physician even so.' The advice giving role of the pharmacist during consultations for medication review with patients anile 80 or more: qualitative discourse analysis. BMJ. 2007;334:1101–1106. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Schneider J, Hairdresser N. Provision of a domiciliary service by community pharmacists. Int J Pharm Pract. 1996;iv:19–24. [Google Scholar]
• Sellors C, Dalby DM, Howard M, Kaczorowski J, Sellors J. A chemist consultation service in community-based family practices: a randomized, controlled trial in seniors. J Pharm Technol. 2001;17:264–269. [Google Scholar]
• Sheridan J, Butler R, Brandt T, Harrison J, Jensen Thou, Shaw J. Patients' and pharmacists' perceptions of a pilot Medicines Apply Review service in Auckland, New Zealand. J Pharm Health Serv Res. 2012;3:35–40. [Google Scholar]
• Sorensen L, Stokes JA, Purdie DM, Woodward K, Elliott R, Roberts MS. Medication reviews in the community: results of a randomized, controlled effectiveness trial. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;58:648–664. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Stewart AL, Lynch KJ. Identifying discrepancies in electronic medical records through pharmacist medication reconciliation. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) 2012;52:59–66. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Swain LD. A pharmacist'due south contribution to an ambulatory neurology dispensary. Consult Pharm. 2012;27:49–57. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Viktil KK, Blix HS, Moger TA, Reikvam A. Interview of patients by pharmacists contributes significantly to the identification of drug-related problems (DRPs) Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2006;15:667–674. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Willoch K, Blix HS, Pedersen-Bjergaard AM, Eek AK, Reikvam A. Handling drug-related problems in rehabilitation patients: a randomized study. Int J Clin Pharm. 2012;34:382–388. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Zermansky AG, Petty DR, Raynor DK, Freemantle N, Vail A, Lowe CJ. Randomised controlled trial of clinical medication review by a chemist of elderly patients receiving repeat prescriptions in general practice. BMJ. 2001;323:1340–1343. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bissell P, Blenkinsopp A, Short D, Stonemason L. Patients' experiences of a customs pharmacy-led medicines direction service. Health Soc Care Community. 2008;16:363–369. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• The Community Pharmacy Medicines Management Projection Evaluation Team. The MEDMAN report: a randomized controlled trial of community pharmacy-led medicines direction for patients with coronary center disease. Fam Pract. 2007;24:189–200. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kennedy JF. Special Message to the Congress on Protecting the Consumer Interest. xv-iii-1962. Available at http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/jfk/publicpapers/1962/jfk93_62.html (last accessed 19 April 2013)
• Guadagnoli E, Ward P. Patient participation in decision-making. Soc Sci Med. 1998;47:329–339. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Wroe AL, Salkovskis PM, Rees Thou, Jack T. Information giving and involvement in handling decisions: is more than really improve? Psychological effects and relation with adherence. Psychol Health. 2013;28:954–971. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Singh JA, Sloan JA, Atherton PJ, Smith T, Hack TF, Huschka MM, Rummans TA, Clark MM, Diekmann B, Degner LF. Preferred roles in treatment conclusion making among patients with cancer: a pooled assay of studies using the Control Preferences Scale. Am J Manag Intendance. 2010;16:688–696. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Belcher VN, Fried TR, Agostini JV, Tinetti ME. Views of older adults on patient participation in medication-related determination making. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:298–303. [PMC costless commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Gibson PG, Talbot PI, Toneguzzi RC. Self-management, autonomy, and quality of life in asthma. Population Medicine Group 91C. Chest. 1995;107:1003–1008. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hubbard G, Kidd L, Donaghy E. Preferences for involvement in treatment decision making of patients with cancer: a review of the literature. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2008;12:299–318. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Nkansah North, Mostovetsky O, Yu C, Chheng T, Beney J, Bail CM, Bero L. Effect of outpatient pharmacists' not-dispensing roles on patient outcomes and prescribing patterns. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(7) ): CD000336. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Determination-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment controlling model. Soc Sci Med. 1999;49:651–661. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Thomas BH, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Micucci South. A process for systematically reviewing the literature: providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2004;1:176–184. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Armijo-Olivo Due south, Stiles CR, Hagen NA, Biondo PD, Cummings GG. Cess of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparing of the Cochrane Collaboration Gamble of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Wellness Practice Project Quality Cess Tool: methodological research. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;xviii:12–18. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Disquisitional Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP Critical appraisal checklists. Qualitative research checklist version fourteen-10-2010.

---

Manufactures from British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology are provided here courtesy of British Pharmacological Society

---

fortinotherid.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4256610/

Share this post