Impact of a Collaborative Pharmaceutical Care Service for Patients With Parkinson’s Disease
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: To identify the impact of a collaborative pharmaceutical care service (CPCS) on medication safety and establish the impact of the CPCS on patient reported outcomes for Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients. Methods: Initially, PD outpatients receiving the CPCS between March 2017 and March 2019 were compared with PD patients receiving standard of care to identify differences in management. Pharmacist interventions data were coded and patients with PD receiving the CPCS were compared with those receiving standard of care to determine differences in medicines prescribed and dosage associated with these. Following this, data of patients receiving CPCS at baseline and 3-months follow-up were collected using a questionnaire consisting of validated measures of two patient-reported outcomes [adherence and quality of life (QoL)]. Mean scores for continuous variables were calculated, with descriptive analysis of categorical variables consisting of frequency counts and percentages. Change in adherence score before and after CPCS was investigated using a Wilcoxon sign rank sum test, spearman correlation analysis was used to correlate the changes in QoL before and after CPCS with the number of interventions, and p < 0.05 indicates that the difference is statistically significant. Results: A total of 331 PD outpatients received CPCS over 490 outpatient visits with an average age of 71.83 (±12.54). Five hundred and forty-five drug related problems were recorded as pharmacist interventions, of which most involved change to dosage ( n = 226, 41.47%), adverse drug reactions ( n = 135, 24.77%), and change in a medication ( n = 102, 18.72%). Compared with those receiving standard of care, patients receiving CPCS were significantly less likely to have been prescribed pramipexole (18.52 versus 23.77%, p < 0.001) and more likely to have been prescribed amantadine (5.40 versus 3.70%, p = 0.02) and selegiline (17.36 versus 11.64%, p < 0.001). Lower dosages of levodopa/benserazide (0.51 ± 0.31 g versus 0.84 ± 0.37 g, p < 0.001), levodopa/carbidopa (0.33 ± 0.23 g versus 0.66 ± 0.47 g, p < 0.001), pramipexole (1.14 ± 1.63 mg versus 1.27 ± 0.69 mg, p = 0.01), and entacapone (130.00 ± 79.76 mg versus 173.09 ± 97.86 mg, p < 0.001) were also recorded. At baseline 119 PD outpatients with an average age of 69.98 (±9.90) were recruited for the longitudinal study. At 3-month follow-up, participants reported improvement in bodily pain subscale (baseline versus 3-months follow-up, 30.04 ± 22.21 versus 23.01 ± 20.98, p = 0.037) and medication adherence (6.19 ± 1.50 versus 6.72 ± 1.73, p = 0.014). Frequency of CPCS use was related to activity of daily living subscale ( p = 0.047), the bodily pain subscale ( p = 0.026), and medication adherence ( p = 0.011). Total score of PDQ-39 was associated with patient education ( p = 0.005) and usage and dosage combined with patient education ( p = 0.006), while medication adherence score was associated with usage and dosage ( p = 0.005). Conclusion: The CPCS was effective in resolving drug-related problems and in improving patients’ medication regimens, medication adherence, and QoL through patient education and dosage adjustments. This is the first step in the development and feasibility testing of pharmacy services for PD patients in China.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».