Medication reviews in community pharmacy: a scoping review of policy, practice and research in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives This scoping review aims to systematically map the empirical evidence on publicly funded medication reviews provided by community pharmacists in Canada and identify gaps that could inform future research directions. Methods We used a scoping review framework and PRISMA guidelines for Scoping Reviews to conduct the study. Three electronic databases were searched for papers published between January 2000 until August 2020. Data was charted on study characteristics, and a thematic synthesis was performed. Key findings Of 41 original studies included, most were conducted in Ontario (n = 21). Majority of the studies employed quantitative designs (70%). Five major themes identified were program uptake, patient health outcomes, stakeholder beliefs and attitudes, processes and collaboration and pharmacy workplace culture, which varied considerably. At the individual, organizational and policy levels, many factors were interrelated and influenced the implementation of reimbursed medication reviews by community pharmacists. Gaps in eligibility policy highlighted some patients who may have complex needs are excluded. Variation in clinical outcomes may relate to different types of medication review and pharmacist practice across Canada. Few researchers evaluated eligibility criteria, the impact of policy changes, strategies to engage patients and healthcare professionals, patient–pharmacist communication or compared practice models of medication reviews. About 12% of the research applied a theoretical framework. Summary Publicly funded medication reviews in Canadian community pharmacies reduce medication-related problems and potentially improve patient health outcomes. Future research and policies could consider addressing barriers and exploring models for sustainable delivery of high-quality medication reviews internationally.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.074 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".