...
首页> 外文期刊>PharmacoEconomics >Is medication review by primary-care pharmacists for older people cost effective?: a narrative review of the literature, focusing on costs and benefits.
【24h】

Is medication review by primary-care pharmacists for older people cost effective?: a narrative review of the literature, focusing on costs and benefits.

机译:由初级保健药师对老年人进行的药物复审是否具有成本效益?:对文献的叙述性复核,重点是成本和收益。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The nature, definition and history of medication review of long-term conditions and treatment is discussed. A literature search for studies of medication review of older people in primary care by pharmacists yielded 16 reports of studies in English, and only ten of these were randomized controlled trials. Extracting meaningful conclusions from the data was problematic because of variations in the nature of the review described, the populations studied, the outcome data measured and the evaluation criteria used. There is a dearth of economic measurement and often inadequate descriptions of the interventions performed. Those interventions that were described in detail varied in the skills, training and approach of the pharmacists. Therefore, there was no possibility of aggregating results of studies, and the review conclusions are based on trends and impression rather than meta-analysis. There was no suggestion in any reports that patients were harmed by the interventions, and some consistency in suggesting that falls and hospital admissions might be reduced with modest cost savings, at least in terms of drug costs. No studies reported a benefit in terms of mortality, mental capacity or activities of daily living. The authors conclude that clinical medication review is probably of value and may be cost effective, but propose a large-scale, long-term, multicentre, collaborative clinical trial with carefully chosen (and clearly described) interventions and outcome measures to confirm this.
机译:讨论了长期病情和治疗的药物审查的性质,定义和历史。文献资料检索了药剂师对初级保健中老年人的药物评价研究,产生了16篇英语研究报告,其中只有10篇是随机对照试验。从数据中提取有意义的结论是有问题的,因为所描述的评价,所研究的人群,所测得的结局数据和所使用的评估标准均存在差异。缺乏经济计量,对所进行的干预措施的描述往往不够充分。详细介绍的那些干预措施在药剂师的技能,培训和方法上各不相同。因此,不可能汇总研究结果,并且审查结论基于趋势和印象而不是荟萃分析。在任何报告中都没有暗示患者会受到干预的伤害,并且在保持适度的成本节约方面,至少在药物成本方面,暗示跌倒和住院人数可能会有所减少。没有研究报告在死亡率,智力或日常生活活动方面有益处。作者得出的结论是,临床药物审查可能有价值并且可能具有成本效益,但提出了大规模,长期,多中心,合作的临床试验,并经过精心选择(并明确描述)干预措施和结果指标来证实这一点。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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