ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2020
Cost utility of a pharmacist-led minor ailment service compared with usual pharmacist care.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic Evaluation of Pharmacist-Led Digital Health Interventions: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- A cost utility analysis alongside a cluster-randomised trial evaluating a minor ailment service compared to usual care in community pharmacy.BMC health services research · 2021Trial
- Evaluating the Clinical and Humanistic Impact of a Self-Care and Minor Ailment Service (MAS).Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes following acute sore throat assessment at community pharmacy versus general practice: a retrospective, longitudinal, data linkage study.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2025Article
- The landscape of self-care in Australia: A pharmacy perspective.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2024Article
- Improving Proton-Pump Inhibitor Adherence Intervention Between Primary Care and Community Pharmacies: A Pre-Post Intervention Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- What do pharmacy users think of free pharmacy services? Investigating pharmacy users' perceptions, attitudes and willingness to pay for free healthcare from pharmacies.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2023Article
- Uptake of community pharmacist prescribing over a three-year period.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2023Article
- Community Pharmacists' Views on the Early Stages of Implementation of a National Pilot Independent Prescribing Service in Wales: A Qualitative Study.Integrated pharmacy research & practice · 2023Article
- Increased self-reported pharmacist prescribing during the COVID-19 pandemic: Using the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify barriers and facilitators to prescribing.Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP · 2023Article
- Clinical relevance and implementation into daily practice of pharmacist-prescribed medication for the management of minor ailments.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Pharmacist Prescribing for Minor Ailments Service Development: The Experience in Ontario.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Public perceptions and experiences of the minor ailment service in community pharmacy in Scotland.Pharmacy practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) performed from July 2018 to March 2019 demonstrated the clinical impact of a community pharmacist delivered minor ailment service (MAS) compared with usual pharmacist care (UC). MAS consisted of a technology-based face-to-face consultation delivered by trained community pharmacists. The consultation was guided by clinical pathways for assessment and management, and communication systems, collaboratively agreed with general practitioners. MAS pharmacists were trained and provided monthly practice support by a practice change facilitator. The objective of this study was to assess the cost utility of MAS, compared to UC.
methodsParticipants recruited were adult patients with symptoms suggestive of a minor ailment condition, from community pharmacies located in Western Sydney. Patients received MAS (intervention) or UC (control) and were followed-up by telephone 14-days following consultation with the pharmacist. A cost utility analysis was conducted alongside the cRCT. Transition probabilities and costs were directly derived from cRCT study data. Utility values were not available from the cRCT, hence we relied on utility values reported in the published literature which were used to calculate quality adjusted life years (QALYs), using the area under the curve method. A decision tree model was used to capture the decision problem, considering a societal perspective and a 14-day time horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed robustness and uncertainty of results, respectively.
resultsPatients (n = 894) were recruited from 30 pharmacies and 82% (n = 732) responded to follow-up. On average, MAS was more costly but also more effective (in terms of symptom resolution and QALY gains) compared to UC. MAS patients (n = 524) gained an additional 0.003 QALYs at an incremental cost of $7.14 (Australian dollars), compared to UC (n = 370) which resulted in an ICER of $2277 (95% CI $681.49-3811.22) per QALY.
conclusionEconomic findings suggest that implementation of MAS within the Australian context is cost effective.
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.