Trial reportBMJ open2016
Optimising the changing role of the community pharmacist: a randomised trial of the impact of audit and feedback.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Professional pharmacy Services' outcomes performance measurement: A narrative review.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2024Review
- Sustainability, spread, and scale in trials using audit and feedback: a theory-informed, secondary analysis of a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2023Article
- Determinants of community pharmacists' quality of care: a population-based cohort study using pharmacy administrative claims data.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Pharmacy practice research produces findings that inform how pharmacists contribute to optimal drug therapy outcomes for Canadians.Canadian pharmacists journal : CPJ = Revue des pharmaciens du Canada : RPC · 2016Article
- Audit and feedback in community pharmacy: An untapped strategy of quality improvement.Canadian pharmacists journal : CPJ = Revue des pharmaciens du Canada : RPCArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the impact of comparative performance feedback to community pharmacists on provision of professional services and the quality of patients' medication use.
designRandomised, controlled, single-blind trial.
settingAll 1833 community pharmacies in the Quebec province, Canada.
participants1814 pharmacies not opting out and with more than 5 dispensings of the target medications during the 6-month baseline were randomised by a 2×2 factorial design to feedback first for hypertension adherence (907 control, 907 intervention) followed by randomisation for asthma adherence (791 control, 807 intervention). 1422 of 1814 pharmacies had complete information available during the follow-up for hypertension intervention (706 intervention, 716 control), and 1301 of 1598 had the follow-up information for asthma (657 intervention, 644 control).
interventionUsing provincial billing data to measure performance, mailed comparative feedback reported the pharmacy-level percentage of dispensings to patients non-adherent to antihypertensive medications or overusing asthma rescue inhalers. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of hypertension/asthma services billed per pharmacy and percentage of dispensings to non-adherent patients over the 12 months post intervention.
resultsFeedback on the asthma measure led to increased provision of asthma services (control 0.2, intervention 0.4, RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.46). However, this did not translate into reductions in patients' overuse of rescue inhalers (control 45.5%, intervention 44.6%, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01). For non-adherence to antihypertensive medications, feedback resulted in no difference in either provision of hypertension services (control 0.7, intervention 0.8, RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.82) or antihypertensive treatment adherence (control 27.9%, intervention 28.0%, RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.00). Baseline performance did not influence results, and there was no evidence of a cumulative effect with repeated feedback.
conclusionsComparative pharmacy performance feedback increased the provision of asthma pharmacists' services but did not improve the performance on medication-use measures. Billing data can be used to evaluate the impact of billable services rendered by pharmacists on the quality of patients' medication use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.