A review of pharmacy‐led interventions: identification of facilitators and barriers for the design of a new model of care for asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective of this narrative review was to determine the facilitators and barriers identified in pharmacy‐led interventions that improve outcomes in patients with asthma and support the implementation of interventions in practice. EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed were used to identify 17 relevant articles. Seven studies were randomised controlled studies and 10 were one‐arm, pre‐post evaluations of all participants enrolled. Questionnaires assessing asthma control, medicine adherence, and knowledge about asthma were used, while checklists were used to assess inhaler technique. Studies with planned interventions in a clinic or general practice setting and lasting for 6 months (compared to longer interventions of 48 weeks) were more successful in retaining participation in the program. Education was the key intervention in which inhaler technique training was the most common. Knowledge about the disease, its aetiology, trigger factors, and medication used were covered in 10 of the studies. Fifteen of the articles reported an improvement in the asthma of patients receiving intervention by the pharmacist, measured by their asthma control test scores, emergency department visits, or reduced emergency steroid prescriptions. This review highlights five key requirements for the success of pharmacy‐based interventions for asthma management: (a) developing and maintaining a skilled workforce; (b) close proximation of a general practitioner practice or clinic to the pharmacy; (c) patient education on the disease and medicine; (d) structured and standardised intervention and assessment; and (e) length of the intervention suitable to the pharmacist and the patient.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".