ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2026
Implementation fidelity of a pharmacist-led intervention program to improve a high serum phosphate concentration in haemodialysis patients: a mixed-methods study.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe PIDO-P (Pharmacist Intervention and Dose Optimization of Phosphate-binding medication) was designed to improve high serum phosphate concentration (SPC) in haemodialysis patients with a high pill burden of phosphate-binding medication (PBM). This intervention consisted of three pharmacist-patient consultations, in which barriers to adherence to PBM were addressed and PBM dose was reduced. Although this intervention improved PBM adherence, SPC remained high.
aimTo determine the implementation fidelity (IF) of the PIDO-P intervention.
methodThis mixed-methods implementation study had a convergent design using the intervention mixed-methods framework. Data from all patients included in the PIDO-P study (n = 75) were used to assess IF using Carroll's Framework for IF. Six key components were identified [A: identifying barriers, B: assessing medication-related health literacy; C: providing information and advice, D: discussing patient preferences, E: providing a summary/dose reduction advice, F: performing a follow-up consultation]. Two researchers independently rated the extent to which the different aspects of the key intervention components were carried out as planned. Data sources were research administration (quantitative and qualitative), oral surveys from patients (quantitative and qualitative) and pharmacists (quantitative), semi-structured interviews with six patients, two pharmacists, and three prescribers (qualitative), and electronic medical records (quantitative). Data from semi-structured interviews were thematically analysed according to Braun and Clarke with Atlas.ti, quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics in SPSS. Where possible, data integration was performed.
resultsThe adherence to the intervention was moderate to high, except for the screening process. The written summary was delivered to a moderate degree (65.3%). Facilitation strategies were helpful, and pharmacists considered the intervention not too complex. The quality of delivery and participant responsiveness were good. Four IF themes could be identified: (1) patient knowledge and understanding, (2) correct use of PBM, (3) PBM treatment individualisation, (4) relationship between pharmacist and patient. To increase its feasibility, the intervention should be targeted at patients with SPC > 2.0 mmol/L, and patient selection should be improved.
conclusionThe lack of effect of the PIDO-P intervention on SPC cannot be explained by low IF. Targeting patients with higher SPC and improving patient selection may increase its effectiveness.
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.