28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Community pharmacy-delivered interventions for public health priorities: a systematic review of interventions for alcohol reduction, smoking cessation and weight management, including meta-analysis for smoking cessation

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          To systematically review the effectiveness of community pharmacy-delivered interventions for alcohol reduction, smoking cessation and weight management.

          Design

          Systematic review and meta-analyses. 10 electronic databases were searched from inception to May 2014.

          Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

          Study design: randomised and non-randomised controlled trials; controlled before/after studies, interrupted times series. Intervention: any relevant intervention set in a community pharmacy, delivered by the pharmacy team. No restrictions on duration, country, age, or language.

          Results

          19 studies were included: 2 alcohol reduction, 12 smoking cessation and 5 weight management. Study quality rating: 6 ‘strong’, 4 ‘moderate’ and 9 ‘weak’. 8 studies were conducted in the UK, 4 in the USA, 2 in Australia, 1 each in 5 other countries. Evidence from 2 alcohol-reduction interventions was limited. Behavioural support and/or nicotine replacement therapy are effective and cost-effective for smoking cessation: pooled OR was 2.56 (95% CI 1.45 to 4.53) for active intervention vs usual care. Pharmacy-based interventions produced similar weight loss compared with active interventions in other primary care settings; however, weight loss was not sustained longer term in a range of primary care and commercial settings compared with control. Pharmacy-based weight management interventions have similar provider costs to those delivered in other primary care settings, which are greater than those delivered by commercial organisations. Very few studies explored if and how sociodemographic or socioeconomic variables moderated intervention effects. Insufficient information was available to examine relationships between effectiveness and behaviour change strategies, implementation factors, or organisation and delivery of interventions.

          Conclusions

          Community pharmacy-delivered interventions are effective for smoking cessation, and demonstrate that the pharmacy is a feasible option for weight management interventions. Given the potential reach, effectiveness and associated costs of these interventions, commissioners should consider using community pharmacies to help deliver public health services.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The positive pharmacy care law: an area-level analysis of the relationship between community pharmacy distribution, urbanity and social deprivation in England

          Objectives To: (1) determine the percentage of the population in England that have access to a community pharmacy within 20 min walk; (2) explore any relationship between the walking distance and urbanity; (3) explore any relationship between the walking distance and social deprivation; and (4) explore any interactions between urbanity, social deprivation and community pharmacy access. Design This area level analysis spatial study used postcodes for all community pharmacies in England. Each postcode was assigned to a population lookup table and lower super output area (LSOA). The LSOA was then matched to urbanity (urban, town and fringe or village, hamlet and isolated dwellings) and deprivation decile (using the Index of Multiple Deprivation score). Primary outcome measure Access to a community pharmacy within 20 min walk. Results Overall, 89.2% of the population is estimated to have access to a community pharmacy within 20 min walk. For urban areas, that is 98.3% of the population, for town and fringe, 79.9% of the population, while for rural areas, 18.9% of the population. For areas of lowest deprivation (deprivation decile 1) 90.2% of the population have access to a community pharmacy within 20 min walk, compared to 99.8% in areas of highest deprivation (deprivation decile 10), a percentage difference of 9.6% (8.2, 10.9). Conclusions Our study shows that the majority of the population can access a community pharmacy within 20 min walk and crucially, access is greater in areas of highest deprivation—a positive pharmacy care law. More research is needed to explore the perceptions and experiences of people—from various levels of deprivation—around the accessibility of community pharmacy services.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Access all areas? An area-level analysis of accessibility to general practice and community pharmacy services in England by urbanity and social deprivation

            Objectives (1) To determine the percentage of the population in England that has access to a general practitioner (GP) premises within a 20 min walk (the accessibility); (2) explore the relationship between the walking distance to a GP premises and urbanity and social deprivation and (3) compare accessibility of a GP premises to that of a community pharmacy—and how this may vary by urbanity and social deprivation. Design This area-level analysis spatial study used postcodes for all GP premises and community pharmacies in England. Each postcode was assigned to a population lookup table and Lower Super Output Area (LSOA). The LSOA was then matched to urbanity (urban, town and fringe, or village, hamlet and isolated dwellings) and deprivation decile (using the Index of Multiple Deprivation score 2010). Primary outcome measure Living within a 20 min walk of a GP premises. Results Overall, 84.8% of the population is estimated to live within a 20 min walk of a GP premises: 81.2% in the most affluent areas, 98.2% in the most deprived areas, 94.2% in urban and 19.4% in rural areas. This is consistently lower when compared with the population living within a 20 min walk of a community pharmacy. Conclusions Our study shows that the vast majority of the population live within a 20 min walk of a GP premises, with higher proportions in the most deprived areas—a positive primary care law. However, more people live within a 20 min walk of a community pharmacy compared with a GP premises, and this potentially has implications for the commissioning of future services from these healthcare providers in England.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Impact of community pharmacy diabetes monitoring and education programme on diabetes management: a randomized controlled study.

              To evaluate the impact of a pharmacist-led patient education and diabetes monitoring programme on HbA(1c) and other cardiovascular risk factors in the community setting.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2016
                29 February 2016
                : 6
                : 2
                : e009828
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University Queen's Campus , Stockton-on-Tees, UK
                [2 ]FUSE, UKCRC Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, Newcastle University , Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
                [3 ]Wolfson Research Institute for Health and Wellbeing, Durham University Queen's Campus , Stockton-on-Tees, UK
                [4 ]Centre for Health and Inequalities Research, Department of Geography, Durham University , Durham, UK
                [5 ]Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University , Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
                [6 ]Blizard Institute, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry , London, UK
                [7 ]Sheffield Business School, Sheffield Hallam University , Sheffield, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Professor Carolyn Summerbell; carolyn.summerbell@ 123456durham.ac.uk
                Article
                bmjopen-2015-009828
                10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009828
                4780058
                26928025
                597e8606-d1ea-4668-9194-8a17dee030c3
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                : 26 August 2015
                : 26 November 2015
                : 11 January 2016
                Categories
                Public Health
                Research
                1506
                1724
                1694
                1734
                1681
                1683

                Medicine
                nutrition & dietetics,preventive medicine,public health
                Medicine
                nutrition & dietetics, preventive medicine, public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article