MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2511562047 · doi:10.1016/j.japh.2016.05.002

The impact of medication reviews by community pharmacists

2016· article· en· W2511562047 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ashra Kolhatkar, Lucy Cheng, Fiona K.I. Chan, Mark Harrison, Michael R. Law

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Pharmacists Association · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesAstraZeneca (Canada)University of British Columbia
FundersEli Lilly CanadaHealth CanadaMichael Smith Health Research BCPfizer CanadaNovartis Pharmaceuticals CanadaLundbeck CanadaMerck CanadaH. Lundbeck A/SF. Hoffmann-La RocheGlaxoSmithKlinePfizerEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMedicineMedical prescriptionDeprescribingPharmacistFamily medicineAmbulatoryPharmacyPopulationPolypharmacyEmergency medicineEnvironmental healthIntensive care medicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Many Canadians use prescription medicines that are unnecessary or that can lead to adverse events. In response, many provinces have introduced programs in which pharmacists are paid to perform medication reviews with patients. As the evidence on such programs is equivocal, we investigated the impact of British Columbia's program. DESIGN: Interrupted time series. SETTING: British Columbia, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: All residents of British Columbia who received a medication review between May 1, 2012, and June 30, 2013 (163,776 individuals). INTERVENTION: Using British Columbia's population-based PharmaNet drug utilization system, we collected data on community pharmacist-led medication reviews. The PharmaNet database contains a record of all medication reviews conducted in an ambulatory setting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We studied the impact of first medication reviews conducted between May 2012 and June 2013. We used interrupted time series analysis to assess longitudinal changes in patients receiving a standard review (n = 147,770) and a more intensive pharmacist consultation (n = 16,006). Our outcomes included drug utilization, costs, potentially inappropriate prescriptions, and medication persistence measured through the proportion of commonly used chronic medications that were eventually refilled. RESULTS: Overall, we observed few changes in the level or trend of any of the outcomes we studied. Both review types were followed by significant increases in both the number of prescriptions per month and expenditures. The continuation of long-term medications did not change for 3 of 4 classes, and increased very slightly for the final class. We found no evidence of deprescribing, either for classes that are potentially problematic for long-term use (benzodiazepines and proton pump inhibitors) or for potentially inappropriate prescriptions in seniors. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that medication reviews did not significantly modify prescription drug use by recipients. Future iterations of such programs might be modified to be better targeted and to encourage closer collaboration between pharmacists and prescribing health care professionals.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.377 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Pharmacists AssociationSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207