首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Asthma and Allergy >A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of collaborative practice between community pharmacist and general practitioner on asthma management
【2h】

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of collaborative practice between community pharmacist and general practitioner on asthma management

机译:对社区药剂师和全科医生合作实践对哮喘管理的影响的系统评价和荟萃分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>Objective: This systematic review aims to investigate the impact of collaborative practice between community pharmacist (CP) and general practitioner (GP) in asthma management.>Methods: A systematic search was performed across 10 databases (PubMed, Medline/Ovid, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, PsycARTICLES®, Science Direct, Education Resource Information Centre, PRO-Quest), and grey literature using selected MeSH and key words, such as “community pharmacist”, “general practitioner”, and “medicine use review”. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed by Cochrane risk of bias tool. All studies reporting any of the clinical, humanistic, and economical outcomes using collaborative practice between CPs and GPs in management of asthma, such as CPs conducting medications reviews, patient referrals or providing education and counseling, were included.>Results: A total of 23 studies (six RCTs, four C-RCT, three controlled interventions, seven pre–post, and three case control) were included. In total, 11/14 outcomes were concluded in favor of CP-GP collaborative interventions with different magnitude of effect size. Outcomes, such as asthma severity, asthma control, asthma symptoms, PEFR, SABA usage, hospital visit, adherence, and quality of life (QoL) (Asthma Quality-of-Life Questionnaire [AQLQ]; Living with Asthma Questionnaire [LWAQ]) demonstrated a small effect size (d≥0.2), while inhalation technique, ED visit, and asthma knowledge witnessed medium effect sizes (ES) (d≥0.5). In addition to that, inhalation technique yielded large ES (d≥0.8) in RCTs subgroup analysis. However, three outcomes, FEV, corticosteroids usage, and preventer-to-reliever ratio, did not hold significant ES (d<0.2) and, thus, remain inconclusive. The collaboration was shown to be value for money in the economic studies in narrative synthesis, however, the limited number of studies hinder pooling of data in meta-analysis.>Conclusion: The findings from this review established a comprehensive evidence base in support of the positive impact of collaborative practice between CP and GP in the management of asthma.
机译:>目的:该系统评价旨在调查社区药师(CP)和全科医生(GP)之间的协作实践对哮喘管理的影响。>方法:使用选定的MeSH和关键字,跨10个数据库(PubMed,Medline / Ovid,CINAHL,Scopus,Web of Science,Cochrane对照试验中央注册,PsycARTICLES®,Science Direct,教育资源信息中心,PRO-Quest)和灰色文献例如“社区药剂师”,“普通从业人员”和“药品使用审查”。通过Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。所有研究报告通过CP和GP在哮喘管理中的合作实践报告的任何临床,人文和经济结果,例如CP进行药物审查,患者转诊或提供教育和咨询。>结果:总共纳入了23项研究(6项RCT,4项C-RCT,3项受控干预,7项事前和3项病例对照)。总的来说,有11/14的结论是赞成采用CP-GP合作干预措施,且效果大小不同。结果,例如哮喘严重程度,哮喘控制,哮喘症状,PEFR,SABA使用,医院就诊,依从性和生活质量(QoL)(哮喘生活质量问卷[AQLQ];与哮喘问卷一起生活[LWAQ])表现出较小的效应量(d≥0.2),而吸入技术,急诊就诊和哮喘知识则表现出中等的效应量(ES)(d≥0.5)。除此之外,在RCTs亚组分析中,吸入技术可产生较大的ES(d≥0.8)。然而,FEV,糖皮质激素的使用以及预防者与缓解者的比率这三个结局并没有显着的ES(d <0.2),因此仍无定论。在叙事综合的经济研究中,这种合作被证明是物有所值的,但是,有限的研究阻碍了荟萃分析中的数据汇总。>结论:支持CP和GP合作实践对哮喘管理产生积极影响的证据基础。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号