ArticleBMC primary care2023
Clinical impact of medication reviews for community-dwelling patients in primary healthcare.
Article in BMC primary care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- 'You get a different mindset' - primary care physicians' perceptions of interprofessional medication reviews for patients living independently.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Safe Handover or Lost in Transition?-A Retrospective Evaluation of Pharmacist Referrals to Primary Care Following Hospital Discharge.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Exploring the experience of managers, employees, and pharmacists in clinical pharmacy in primary care using the SEIPS model: A focus group study.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2025Article
- Intervention description of pharmacist-facilitated medication reviews in Nordic primary care settings: a scoping review.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA high number of drug-related problems has previously been shown among community-dwelling patients in primary healthcare in Skåne County, Sweden. Medication reviews are one way to solve these problems, but their impact is largely dependent on the process. We aimed to evaluate medication reviews for community-dwelling patients regarding the clinical relevance of the pharmacists' recommendations, and their implementation by general practitioners. We also wanted to investigate if the general practitioners' tendency to act on drug-related problems was correlated to different factors of the process.
methodsThis was a cohort study, where patients in primary healthcare considered in need of a medication review were selected. Pharmacists identified drug-related problems and gave written recommendations on how to solve the problems to the general practitioner, via the medical record, and in addition in some cases via verbal communication. The clinical relevance of the recommendations was graded according to the Hatoum scale, ranging from one (adverse significance) to six (extremely significant). Descriptive statistics were used regarding the clinical relevance and the general practitioners´ tendency to act on drug-related problems. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to examine the association between the tendency to act and different factors of the process.
resultsA total of 96.1% of the 384 assessed recommendations from the pharmacists were graded as significant or more for the patient (Hatoum grade 3 or higher). The general practitioners acted on 63.8% of the drug-related problems. Fewer recommendations per patient, as well as verbal communication in addition to written contact, significantly increased the general practitioners' tendency to act on a drug-related problem. No significant association was seen between the tendency to act and the clinical relevance of the recommendation.
conclusionsThe high proportion of clinically relevant recommendations from the pharmacists in this study strengthens medication reviews as an important tool for reducing drug-related problems. Verbal communication between the pharmacist and the general practitioner is important for measures to be taken. Multiple recommendations for the same patient reduced their likelihood to of being addressed by the general practitioner.
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.