Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24293339›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2014

Impact of pharmaceutical care on adherence, hospitalisations and mortality in elderly patients.

Charlotte Olesen, Philipp Harbig, Kirsten Marie Buus, Ishay Barat, Else Marie Damsgaard

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pharmacist services for non-hospitalised patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Charlotte OlesenDepartment of Geriatrics, Aarhus University Hospital, P.P. Ørumsgade 11, bygn. 7, 1, 8000, Århus C, Denmark, chaolese@rm.dk.
Philipp Harbig
Kirsten Marie Buus
Ishay Barat
Else Marie Damsgaard

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElderly polypharmacy patients may be more at risk of not adhering to medication. If so, the underlying reasons may be more readily disclosed during private discussions with patients. Hence pharmaceutical care discussions at home might improve treatment adherence.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the impact of pharmaceutical care on medication adherence, hospitalisation and mortality in elderly patients prescribed polypharmacy.

settingPharmaceutical care discussed at home.

methodsA randomised controlled trial with two arms; pharmaceutical care (n = 315) and controls (n = 315) was designed. It involved patients aged 65+ years living in Aarhus, Denmark who used five drugs or more without assistance. Pharmacists visited the pharmaceuticalcare patients at home, once only, and followed them during the subsequent year with three telephone calls. Non-adherence was measured by a pill-count. Patients were categorised as non-adherent if their mean adherence rate for all drugs consumed was <80 %. The impact of pharmaceutical care on non-adherence and hospitalisation was analysed by 2 × 2 tables, and mortality by Cox regression.

main outcome measureMedication adherence, hospitalisation and mortality.

resultsThe final analyses included 517 patients (median age 74 years; females 52 %). Dropouts were more frequent for the pharmaceutical-care group than for controls. Pharmacists encountered drug-related problems amongst 72 % of pharmaceutical-care patients. Pharmaceutical-care patients (11 %) and control patients (10 %) were similarly nonadherent (Odds ratio 1.14; 95 % confidence interval 0.65-2.00), and similar with respect to hospitalisation frequency (30 vs. 28 %; Odds ratio 1.14; 95 % confidence interval 0.78-1.67) and mortality (7.5 vs. 5 %; Hazard ratio 1.41; 95 % confidence interval 0.71-2.82).

conclusionsPharmaceutical care given to our elderly polypharmacy patients made no significant impact on medication adherence, hospitalisation or mortality, when compared to comparable control patients.

Indexed as

Drug MonitoringMortalityPharmaceutical ServicesAgedAged, 80 and overAgingDenmarkDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleMedication AdherencePolypharmacyRegression Analysis

Identifiers

PMID24293339

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.