Search

Aims: The aim of this systematic review is to assess the effects of community pharmacist-led interventions to optimise the use of antibiotics and identify which interventions are most effective. Methods: This review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42020188552). PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for (randomised) controlled trials. Included interventions were required to target antibiotic use, be set in the community pharmacy context, and be pharmacist-led. Primary outcomes were quality of antibiotic supply and adverse effects while secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the ‘Cochrane suggested risk of bias criteria’ and narrative synthesis of primary outcomes conducted. Results: Seventeen studies were included covering in total 3822 patients (mean age 45.6 years, 61.9% female). Most studies used educational interventions. Three studies reported on primary outcomes, 12 on secondary outcomes and two on both. Three studies reported improvements in quality of dispensing, interventions led to more intensive symptom assessment (up to 30% more advice given) and a reduction of over-the-counter supply up to 53%. Three studies led to higher consumer satisfaction, effects on adherence from nine studies were mixed (risk difference 0.04 [−0.02, 0.10]). All studies had unclear or high risks of bias across at least one domain, with large heterogeneity between studies. Conclusions: Our review suggests some positive results from pharmacist-led interventions, but the interventions do not seem sufficiently effective as currently implemented. This review should be interpreted as exploratory research, as more high-quality research is needed.

Objective. To compare different indicators for assessing the quality of drug prescribing and establish their agreement in identifying doctors who may not adhere to treatment guidelines. Data Sources/Study Setting. Data from 181 general practitioners (GPs) from The Netherlands. The case of asthma is used as an example because, in this area, different quality indicators exist whose validity is questioned. The study is part of the European Drug Education Project. Study Design. Spearman rank correlations were assessed among the GPs' scores on self-report instruments, aggregated prescribing indicators, and individualized prescribing indicators. Kappa values were calculated as agreement measures for identifying low adherence to the guidelines. Data Collection. Prescribing data from GPs were collected through pharmacies, public health insurance companies, or computerized GP databases. Two self-report instruments were mailed to the GPs. The GPs first received a questionnaire assessing their competence regarding the treatment of asthma patients. Three months later they received a series of 16 written asthma cases asking for their intended treatment for each case. Principal Findings. Correlations between scores based on self-report instruments and indicators based on actual prescribing data were mostly nonsignificant and varied between 0 and 0.21. GPs identified as not adhering to the guidelines by the prescribing indicators often had high scores on the self-report instruments. Correlations between 0.20 and 0.55 were observed among indicators based on aggregated prescribing data and those based on individualized data. The agreement for identifying low adherence was small, with kappa values ranging from 0.19 to 0.30. Conclusions. Indicators based on self-report instruments seem to overestimate guideline adherence. Indicators assessing prescribing quality at an aggregated level give clearly different results, as compared to indicators evaluating prescribing data on an individual patient level. Caution is needed when using such prescribing indicators to identify low adherence to guidelines. Further validation studies using a gold standard comparison are needed to define the best possible indicator.