MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7106024229 · doi:10.7939/83209

Role of Pharmacists in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Management

2025· dissertation· en· W7106024229 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2025
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésReferralCOPDPulmonary diseasePsychosocialPopulationHealth careSmoking cessationDisease managementInhaler

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) are foundational for integrated primary healthcare delivery and population health management. A key PCMH principle is chronic disease management, which requires collaboration among healthcare professionals to meet patients' medical and psychosocial needs. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is well suited to benefit from collaborative care. The expanding role of pharmacists positions them as suitable for close collaboration in managing chronic diseases, including COPD. Pharmacists may contribute to COPD management through detecting adverse drug reactions, medication reconciliation, smoking cessation counseling, addressing treatment adherence, and inhaler technique assessment. Besides participating in case-finding activities including referral patients to spirometry, diagnosis, and treatment initiation. Objectives: Aim one is to map pharmacists' activities and collaboration between pharmacists and physicians, describe outcomes of pharmacist-physician collaborative care in COPD according to the Economic, Clinical, Humanistic Outcomes (ECHO) model. Aim two is to understand current COPD management practices by physicians and examine their perceptions of COPD clinical services provided by community pharmacists within Alberta. Method: The first project was a scoping review that followed the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley. A comprehensive search from January 2003 to August 2024 was conducted using Scopus, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and the first 100 results of Google Scholar. The search strategy employed a combination of "pharmacist”, "COPD”, "collaboration", and "physician" concepts, incorporating MeSH terms and expanded free-text terms. The second project was an online cross-sectional survey conducted with a convenience sample of respirologists, emergency medicine, and family medicine physicians within Alberta between November 1st, 2023, to November 1st, 2024. The survey tool was developed by the authors based on previous literature. Results: In project 1, Most studies originated from the USA (n=11; 61%) and used observational research designs (n=15; 83%) to evaluate outcomes. Multi-component interventions were common and the main pharmacists’ activities were: 1) Medication optimization (n=16; 89%), 2) COPD monitoring (n=18; 100%), 3) Screening and diagnosis (n=4; 22%), and 4) Other activities (n=12; 67%). Integrated services were delivered by pharmacists co-located with physicians in 12 studies (67%); 8 (44.4%) studies scored high on collaboration scale (≥6 out of 10). The most commonly reported outcomes were clinical (n=11; 61%) particularly hospital-related outcomes, followed by humanistic (n=8; 45%) most commonly quality of life, and economic (n=7; 39%) primarily cost savings. In project 2, Of the 96 individual surveys returned, 52 were complete. The majority (n=38, 73.1%) had experience collaborating with pharmacists providing clinical services and 68% (n=26) of these rated pharmacist’s services as good or very good. Two-thirds of respondents (n=34; 66%) encounter 6 or more COPD patients/month. Patients had access to smoking cessation programs and required medications. Access to timely pulmonary rehabilitation; specialist referral and post-hospitalization assessment were viewed as inadequate. Eighty-one percent of physicians agreed that pharmacists have an important role in COPD care. Regarding assessment, most participants (n=36, 69%) agreed that pharmacists can inform physicians about the need for spirometry in those with suspected COPD, but only half (n=25, 48%) supported pharmacists performing spirometry in patients at risk. The majority agreed to items relating to pharmacist roles in patient and caregiver education. Regarding management, half of the respondents (n=25, 49%) agreed that pharmacists could assist with managing COPD exacerbations, while almost all (n=51, 98%) agreed that pharmacists can ensure COPD patients have up-to-date immunizations. Conclusion: Using a scoping review and cross-sectional survey, this thesis explored the pharmacists’ activities in COPD care and the outcomes of these collaborative practices in addition to the perceptions of physicians about the care provided and the role of community pharmacists in COPD management. The findings highlighted considerable variability in pharmacist interventions, tailored to address diverse patient needs. Collaborative approaches involving physicians and pharmacists in COPD management may have a positive impact on both health-related and economic outcomes, although the impact on humanistic aspects remains inconsistent. Also, the results of the survey showed most respondents recognized that community pharmacists play an important role in patient education and ensure that treatment aligns with current evidence-based practices. However, physicians' perspectives varied and there was less support for pharmacists' capacity to contribute to the process of diagnosing patients with COPD. Most of the participating physicians believed that the majority of their patients had adequate access to the recommended care. Additional research is necessary to investigate physicians' views on pharmacists' roles in COPD management to support high-quality COPD care.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,010
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,010
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,054

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0100,030
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,240
Écart entre enseignants0,233 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUniversity of Alberta LibraryMême sujetChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchTravaux en français237 207