ArticleEuropean journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice2017
A pilot study to assess the practicality, acceptability and feasibility of a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the impact of a pharmacist complex intervention on patients with stroke in their own homes.
Article in European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Interventions for improving medication-taking ability and adherence in older adults prescribed multiple medications.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Pharmacist services for non-hospitalised patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- The role of community pharmacists in medicines optimisation for housebound people: A scoping review.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Current perspectives on pharmacist home visits: do we keep reinventing the wheel?Integrated pharmacy research & practice · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo test the practicality, acceptability and feasibility of recruitment, data collection, blood pressure (BP) monitoring and pharmaceutical care processes, in order to inform the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial of a pharmacist complex intervention on patients with stroke in their own homes.
methodsPatients with new stroke from acute, rehabilitation wards and a neurovascular clinic (NVC) were randomised to usual care or to an intervention group who received a home visit at 1, 3 and 6 months from a clinical pharmacist. Pharmaceutical care comprised medication review, medicines and lifestyle advice, pharmaceutical care issue (PCI) resolution and supply of individualised patient information. A pharmaceutical care plan was sent to the General Practitioner and Community Pharmacy. BP and lipids were measured for both groups at baseline and at 6 months. Questionnaires covering satisfaction, quality of life and medicine adherence were administered at 6 months.
resultsOf the 430 potentially eligible patients, 30 inpatients and 10 NVC outpatients were recruited. Only 33/364 NVC outpatients (9.1%) had new stroke. 35 patients completed the study (intervention=18, usual care=17). Questionnaire completion rates were 91.4% and 84.4%, respectively. BP and lipid measurement processes were unreliable. From 104 identified PCIs, 19/23 recommendations (83%) made to general practitioners were accepted.
conclusionModifications to recruitment is required to include patients with transient ischaemic attack. Questionnaire response rates met criteria but completion rates did not, which merits further analysis. Lipid measurements are not necessary as an outcome measure. A reliable BP-monitoring process is required.
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.