IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/drugsa/v39y2016i2d10.1007_s40264-015-0370-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tools for Assessing Potential Significance of Pharmacist Interventions: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Thi-Ha Vo

    (Univ. Grenoble Alpes
    CNRS, TIMC-IMAG)

  • Bruno Charpiat

    (Univ. Grenoble Alpes
    CNRS, TIMC-IMAG
    Hôpital de la Croix-Rousse, Pharmacie)

  • Claire Catoire

    (Univ. Grenoble Alpes
    CNRS, TIMC-IMAG
    CHU Grenoble)

  • Michel Juste

    (Centre Hospitalier Auban-Moët, Pharmacie)

  • Renaud Roubille

    (Centre Hospitalier Lucien Hussel, Pharmacie)

  • François-Xavier Rose

    (EPSM-Morbihan, Pharmacie)

  • Sébastien Chanoine

    (Univ. Grenoble Alpes
    CHU Grenoble)

  • Jean-Luc Bosson

    (Univ. Grenoble Alpes
    CNRS, TIMC-IMAG)

  • Ornella Conort

    (Hôpital Cochin, Pharmacie)

  • Benoît Allenet

    (Univ. Grenoble Alpes
    CNRS, TIMC-IMAG
    CHU Grenoble)

  • Pierrick Bedouch

    (Univ. Grenoble Alpes
    CNRS, TIMC-IMAG
    CHU Grenoble)

Abstract

Introduction Assessing the significance of pharmacist interventions (PIs) is essential to demonstrate the added value of pharmacists. Methods and tools for assessing the potential significance of PIs are diverse and their properties are questionable. Objectives We aimed to systematically review the tools available to assess the potential significance of PIs. Methods We conducted a systematic search for English- or French-language publications from 1986 to 2013 in PubMed, PsycINFO, PASCAL, and CINAHL. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers based on inclusion/exclusion criteria and were abstracted for content, structure of tools, and validation process. Results Of 873 citations screened, 82 distinct tools were identified from 133 studies. While clinical aspects were often defined quite clearly, terminology regarding humanistic, economic, and process-related aspects of PIs was omitted, incomplete, or ambiguous in most tools. The probabilities of consequences of PIs/drug-related problems were evaluated in 20/82 tools. Few tools simultaneously measured economic, clinical, humanistic, and process-related variables. Structure of the tools varied from an implicit, mono-dimensional tool to an explicit, multi-dimensional algorithm. Validation processes were diverse in terms of quantification and number of raters, rating method, and psychometric parameters. Of 133 identified studies, there was limited evidence of validity (8/133, 6.0 %), inter-rater reliability (49/133, 36.8 %), and intra-rater reliability (2/133, 1.5 %). Conclusions The majority of tools focused primarily on assessing clinical aspects and failed to detect comprehensive impacts. The heterogeneity of tools and assessment processes hindered our ability to synthesize the results of evaluations. Limited results for their validity and reliability cast doubt on the credibility of this methodology for justification of the value of PIs. Recommendations for development of tools with optimal theoretical, pragmatic, and psychometric properties are proposed.

Suggested Citation

  • Thi-Ha Vo & Bruno Charpiat & Claire Catoire & Michel Juste & Renaud Roubille & François-Xavier Rose & Sébastien Chanoine & Jean-Luc Bosson & Ornella Conort & Benoît Allenet & Pierrick Bedouch, 2016. "Tools for Assessing Potential Significance of Pharmacist Interventions: A Systematic Review," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 131-146, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:39:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s40264-015-0370-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s40264-015-0370-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-015-0370-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40264-015-0370-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:39:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s40264-015-0370-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40264 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.