↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Effect of outpatient pharmacists' non-dispensing roles on patient outcomes and prescribing patterns

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
4 policy sources
twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
270 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
520 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Effect of outpatient pharmacists' non-dispensing roles on patient outcomes and prescribing patterns
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000336.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nancy Nkansah, Olga Mostovetsky, Christine Yu, Tami Chheng, Johnny Beney, Christine M Bond, Lisa Bero

Abstract

The roles of pharmacists in patient care have expanded from the traditional tasks of dispensing medications and providing basic medication counseling to working with other health professionals and the public. Multiple reviews have evaluated the impact of pharmacist-provided patient care on health-related outcomes. Prior reviews have primarily focused on in-patient settings. This systematic review focuses on services provided by outpatient pharmacists in community or ambulatory care settings. This is an update of the Cochrane review published in 2000. To examine the effect of outpatient pharmacists' non-dispensing roles on patient and health professional outcomes. This review has been split into two phases. For Phase I, we searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register (January 1966 through March 2007). For Phase II, we searched MEDLINE/EMBASE (January 1966 through March 2008). The Phase I results are reported in this review; Phase II will be summarized in the next update. Randomized controlled trials comparing 1. Pharmacist services targeted at patients versus services delivered by other health professionals; 2. Pharmacist services targeted at patients versus the delivery of no comparable service; 3. Pharmacist services targeted at health professionals versus services delivered by other health professionals; 4. Pharmacist services targeted at health professionals versus the delivery of no comparable service. Two authors independently reviewed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Forty-three studies were included; 36 studies were pharmacist interventions targeting patients and seven studies were pharmacist interventions targeting health professionals. For comparison 1, the only included study showed a significant improvement in systolic blood pressure for patients receiving medication management from a pharmacist compared to usual care from a physician. For comparison 2, in the five studies evaluating process of care outcomes, pharmacist services reduced the incidence of therapeutic duplication and decreased the total number of medications prescribed. Twenty-nine of 36 studies reported clinical and humanistic outcomes. Pharmacist interventions resulted in improvement in most clinical outcomes, although these improvements were not always statistically significant. Eight studies reported patient quality of life outcomes; three studies showed improvement in at least three subdomains. For comparison 3, no studies were identified meeting the inclusion criteria. For comparison 4, two of seven studies demonstrated a clear statistically significant improvement in prescribing patterns. Only one included study compared pharmacist services with other health professional services, hence we are unable to draw conclusions regarding comparisons 1 and 3. Most included studies supported the role of pharmacists in medication/therapeutic management, patient counseling, and providing health professional education with the goal of improving patient process of care and clinical outcomes, and of educational outreach visits on physician prescribing patterns. There was great heterogeneity in the types of outcomes measured across all studies. Therefore a standardized approach to measure and report clinical, humanistic, and process outcomes for future randomized controlled studies evaluating the impact of outpatient pharmacists is needed. Heterogeneity in study comparison groups, outcomes, and measures makes it challenging to make generalised statements regarding the impact of pharmacists in specific settings, disease states, and patient populations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 520 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 7 1%
United Kingdom 7 1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 498 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 79 15%
Researcher 63 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 63 12%
Student > Bachelor 59 11%
Student > Postgraduate 39 8%
Other 114 22%
Unknown 103 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 174 33%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 92 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 7%
Social Sciences 24 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 3%
Other 66 13%
Unknown 114 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2022.
All research outputs
#830,346
of 22,100,013 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,833
of 12,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,480
of 405,936 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#51
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,100,013 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,182 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 405,936 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.