Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31808563›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2019

Community pharmacy interventions for health promotion: effects on professional practice and health outcomes.

Liz Steed, Ratna Sohanpal, Adam Todd, Vichithranie W Madurasinghe, Carol Rivas, Elizabeth A Edwards, Carolyn D Summerbell, Stephanie Jc Taylor, R T Walton

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Social Attitudes Towards Public Health Interventions in Community Pharmacies in Poland: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Survey.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Liz SteedQueen Mary University of London, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Blizard Institute, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, UK, E1 2AT.
Ratna SohanpalQueen Mary University of London, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Blizard Institute, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, UK, E1 2AT.
Adam ToddNewcastle University, School of Pharmacy, Queen Victoria Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU.
Vichithranie W MadurasingheQueen Mary University of London, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Blizard Institute, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, UK, E1 2AT.
Carol RivasUniversity College London, Department of Social Science, UCL Institute of Education, 18 Woburn Square, London, UK, WC1H 0NR.
Elizabeth A EdwardsQueen Mary University of London, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Blizard Institute, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, UK, E1 2AT.
Carolyn D SummerbellDurham University, Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences, 42 Old Elvet, Durham, UK, DH13HN.
Stephanie Jc TaylorQueen Mary University of London, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Blizard Institute, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, UK, E1 2AT.
R T WaltonQueen Mary University of London, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Blizard Institute, Yvonne Carter Building, 58 Turner Street, London, UK, E1 2AT.
Queen Mary University of London · GBDurham University · GBUniversité Paris Cité · FRUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunity pharmacies are an easily accessible and cost-effective platform for delivering health care worldwide, and the range of services provided has undergone rapid expansion in recent years. Thus, in addition to dispensing medication, pharmacy workers within community pharmacies now give advice on a range of health-promoting behaviours that aim to improve health and to optimise the management of long-term conditions. However, it remains uncertain whether these health-promotion interventions can change the professional practice of pharmacy workers, improve health behaviours and outcomes for pharmacy users and have the potential to address health inequalities.

objectivesTo assess the effectiveness and safety of health-promotion interventions to change community pharmacy workers' professional practice and improve outcomes for users of community pharmacies. SEARCH

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, six other databases and two trials registers to 6 February 2018. We also conducted reference checking, citation searches and contacted study authors to identify any additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials of health-promotion interventions in community pharmacies targeted at, or delivered by, pharmacy workers that aimed to improve the health-related behaviour of people attending the pharmacy compared to no treatment, or usual treatment received in the community pharmacy. We excluded interventions where there was no interaction between pharmacy workers and pharmacy users, and those that focused on medication use only. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard procedures recommended by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care review group for both data collection and analysis. We compared intervention to no intervention or to usual treatment using standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) (higher scores represent better outcomes for pharmacy user health-related behaviour and quality of life, and lower scores represent better outcomes for clinical outcomes, costs and adverse events). Interpretation of effect sizes (SMD) was in line with Cochrane recommendations. MAIN

resultsWe included 57 randomised trials with 16,220 participants, described in 83 reports. Forty-nine studies were conducted in high-income countries, and eight in middle-income countries. We found no studies that had been conducted in low-income countries. Most interventions were educational, or incorporated skills training. Interventions were directed at pharmacy workers (n = 8), pharmacy users (n = 13), or both (n = 36). The clinical areas most frequently studied were diabetes, hypertension, asthma, and modification of cardiovascular risk. Duration of follow-up of interventions was often unclear. Only five studies gave details about the theoretical basis for the intervention, and studies did not provide sufficient data to comment on health inequalities. The most common sources of bias were lack of protection against contamination - mainly in individually randomised studies - and inadequate blinding of participants. The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was moderate. We downgraded the certainty because of the heterogeneity across studies and evidence of potential publication bias. Professional practice outcomes We conducted a narrative analysis for pharmacy worker behaviour due to high heterogeneity in the results. Health-promotion interventions probably improve pharmacy workers' behaviour (2944 participants; 9 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) when compared to no intervention. These studies typically assessed behaviour using a simulated patient (mystery shopper) methodology. Pharmacy user outcomes Health-promotion interventions probably lead to a slight improvement in health-related behaviours of pharmacy users when compared to usual treatment (SMD 0.43, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.72; I AUTHORS'

conclusionsHealth-promotion interventions in the community pharmacy context probably improve pharmacy workers' behaviour and probably have a slight beneficial effect on health-related behaviour, intermediate clinical outcomes, and quality of life for pharmacy users. Such interventions are likely to be cost-effective and the effects are seen across a range of clinical conditions and health-related behaviours. Nevertheless the magnitude of the effects varies between conditions, and more effective interventions might be developed if greater consideration were given to the theoretical basis of the intervention and mechanisms for effecting behaviour change.

Indexed as

Community Health ServicesHealth PromotionPharmaceutical ServicesChronic DiseaseCommunicationDelivery of Health CareDisease ManagementHealth BehaviorHumansOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID31808563
PMCPMC6896091
OpenAlexW2172207641

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.