Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39399763›Full record

ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2024

Development of a medication review intervention by seconding a hospital pharmacist to primary care.

Sara Sommer Holst, Johanne Mølby Hansen, Susanne Kaae, Charlotte Vermehren

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Sara Sommer HolstDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, DK-2400 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Johanne Mølby HansenDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, DK-2400 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Susanne KaaeDepartment of Pharmacy, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Charlotte VermehrenDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, DK-2400 Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Medication reviews (MRs) are a well-described initiative that improves health outcomes for polypharmacy patients. However, there is limited knowledge about the performance of medication reviews carried out in general practice especially under the leadership of hospital clinical pharmacists. When developing complex interventions, such as MRs, it is essential to describe the development process to ensure transparency and avoid research waste. Objective: Thus, this study aimed to describe the steps of developing a new MR intervention targeting general practice to ensure transparency and transferability. Methods: A stepwise approach inspired by the Medical Research Council framework was utilised in the process, covering two of the phases, i.e., development and feasibility, divided into four steps: 1) intervention drafting by a literature search, 2) expert opinion, 3) pilot testing in general practice clinics, and 4) evaluation of quantitative MR data. Results: Based on the results from the first three steps, four main themes which influenced the success of the MR intervention were identified: general practitioner resources, patient involvement, implementation difficulties and interdisciplinarity. These themes guided the pilot evaluation in step four. Conclusion: A new feasible, complex MR intervention utilising clinical pharmacists in general practice involving hospital clinical pharmacists in a real-life setting was developed.

Indexed as

Complex interventionDevelopmentGeneral practiceMedication reviewPharmacistsPolypharmacy

Identifiers

PMID39399763
PMCPMC11470395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.