SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2025
Exploring risk assessment tools for medicine-related problems among culturally and linguistically diverse patients in Australia: a systematic review.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis review evaluated publications that described medicine risk assessment tools developed or adapted for use in Australia to assess risks associated with medicine-related problems (MRPs). It examined whether these tools considered cultural background as a crucial risk factor for MRPs and whether clinical guidelines provided tailored recommendations for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) patients.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in Web of Science, Scopus, CINHAL, EMBASE, PubMed/Medline and Google Scholar (January 1985-November 2024). The review included publications on the development or validation of medicine risk assessment tools for MRPs in Australia, as well as clinical guidelines relevant to managing diseases classified as National Health Priority Areas (NHPAs).
resultsSixteen publications on thirteen medication risk assessment tools and thirteen publications on twelve clinical therapeutic guidelines were included. Risk factors varied widely and were categorised into four groups: patient-related (e.g. age, cognitive status), disease-related (e.g. comorbidities), medicine-related (e.g. polypharmacy), and health services-related (e.g. re-hospitalisations). Only one tool considered CALD background as a risk factor for MRPs. Although some tools acknowledged non-adherence or communication issues, they did not systematically address underlying cultural or linguistic factors. Clinical guidelines primarily focused on self-management and providing information in CALD patients' first language, with some encouraging interpreter use.
conclusionMedicine risk assessment tools lack consistent frameworks, and CALD backgrounds are largely overlooked as a key demonstrated risk factor for MRPs. Future research should develop inclusive tools and clinical guidelines incorporating cultural and linguistic factors. Policymakers and healthcare practitioners should refine these tools to improve medication safety and achieve equitable healthcare outcomes for CALD populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40295354What 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.