SynthesisInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2026
Pharmacist input to depression screening and management in patients with diabetes: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDepression affects approximately 5% of the global adult population, and its clinical and economic burden is particularly pronounced among individuals with chronic conditions such as diabetes mellitus, where it is frequently underdiagnosed and inadequately managed. Pharmacists play an important role in managing chronic diseases, including depression, through screening and medication management.
aimThis systematic review aimed to critically appraise and synthesize evidence on pharmacist input in screening and managing depression among patients with diabetes, either as sole providers or as part of a multidisciplinary team, and assess their impact on clinical outcomes and quality of life.
methodA systematic literature search was conducted in March 2023 and updated in March 2025 across Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA) databases, and reported in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Studies, irrespective of their design and published in English, reporting any pharmacist input in screening and managing depression among patients with diabetes, were included. No date restrictions were applied. Data extraction was based on Donabedian's quality-of-care model, which categorizes findings into structure, process, and outcome. The results were presented in both narrative and tabular formats. Quality was assessed by two independent researchers via the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.
resultsAmong the 1,852 records screened, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies described pharmacist input in depression screening n = 4, medication therapy management n = 6, telehealth services n = 2, and shared medical appointments n = 1. The most reported setting was outpatient clinics, n = 5. All studies demonstrated the positive impact of pharmacists on depression screening, treatment initiation, and medication adherence., Some interventions failed to significantly improve clinical parameters such as HbA1c levels or depressive symptoms. Barriers included limited physicians' response to screening results and a lack of structured care models.
conclusionThe positive impact of pharmacist interventions on this patient cohort is evident despite the variability across settings and intervention designs, reflecting the adaptability of pharmacist services. Results also suggest the need for standardized models of care and consistent outcome reporting.
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.