Advertisement

Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists

  • Chiranjeev SanyalEmail author
  • Don Husereau
Systematic Review

Abstract

Background

Community pharmacists’ scope of practice has been evolving from a traditional dispensing role to providing patient-centered services. Given the constraints in healthcare budget and a need for efficient use of finite resources, decision makers may require convincing evidence of value to recommend these services for public funding. Several economic evaluations have aimed to demonstrate the value of services provided by community pharmacists.

Objective

The objective of this study was to systematically review the reporting and methodological quality of full economic evaluations of services provided by community pharmacists.

Methods

A literature search was conducted in the bibliographic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the NHS Economic Evaluations Database since their inception to February 2019. Two independent reviewers performed title, abstract, full text screening, and data abstraction and assessed the quality of reporting and methodological approaches using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) checklists.

Results

Twenty full economic evaluations were included in the review. Most of these studies were conducted in the UK (40%), followed by the USA (35%), Canada (10%), the Netherlands (5%), Thailand (5%), and Australia (5%). The efficacy or effectiveness data were drawn from individual level or cluster randomized trials, or observational studies. About half of these studies (45%) adopted the perspective of the public healthcare system. Four studies used decision analytic modeling. We identified issues in these studies with selection of study population, efficacy or effectiveness data, time horizon, outcomes measured, measurement or resources used and cost estimation, analytical approaches, and handling of uncertainty with study parameters. The quality of reporting and methodological considerations was variable across these studies, with none of the studies adequately fulfilling all 24 items of CHEERS or 16 questions of QHES checklists.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest there are various issues related to the quality of conduct and reporting of economic evaluations of services provided by community pharmacists. Interpretation of these studies should be treated with caution to facilitate decision making in the local context. In an era of scarce resources and demand for evidence-informed decision making, there may be a need for guidance on methodological approaches to assess the value of these services.

Notes

Author contributions

CS and DH contributed to the design and conduct of the study, title/abstract screening, full text selection, data extraction, critical appraisal, drafting and critical revision of the manuscript for intellectual content, and approved the final draft submitted for publication.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

The Canadian Pharmacists Association funded the writing of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

Chiranjeev Sanyal is an employee of the Canadian Pharmacists Association. Don Husereau has received consultancy fees from the Canadian Pharmacists Association.

Ethical approval

This study did not involve participation of human subjects; therefore, ethical approval was not required.

Informed consent

Not required.

Data availability statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current review.

Supplementary material

40258_2019_535_MOESM1_ESM.docx (19 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 18 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Tsuyuki RT, Houle SKD, Okada H. Time to give up on expanded scope of practice. Can Pharm J. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1715163518793844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tannenbaum C, Tsuyuki RT. The expanding scope of pharmacists’ practice: implications for physicians. CMAJ. 2013;185:1228–32.  https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.121990.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dolovich L, Austin Z, Waite N, Chang F, Farrell B, Grindrod K, et al. Pharmacy in the 21st century: enhancing the impact of the profession of pharmacy on people’s lives in the context of health care trends, evidence and policies. Can Pharm J (Ott). 2019;152:45–53.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1715163518815717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Flowerdew L, Brown R, Russ S, Vincent C, Woloshynowych M. Teams under pressure in the emergency department: an interview study. Emerg Med J. 2012;29:e2.  https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2011-200084.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2015.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sanyal C, Husereau D. Community-based services by pharmacists: a systematic review of cost-utility analyses. Value in Health. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.08.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. BMC Med. 2013;11:80.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chiou C-F, Hay JW, Wallace JF, Bloom BS, Neumann PJ, Sullivan SD, et al. Development and validation of a grading system for the quality of cost-effectiveness studies. Med Care. 2003;41:32–44.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MLR.0000039824.73620.E5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Walker DG, Wilson RF, Sharma R, Bridges J, Niessen L, Bass EB, et al. Best practices for conducting economic evaluations in health care: a systematic review of quality assessment tools. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Spiegel BMR, Targownik LE, Kanwal F, Derosa V, Dulai GS, Gralnek IM, et al. The quality of published health economic analyses in digestive diseases: a systematic review and quantitative appraisal. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:403–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Avery AJ, Rodgers S, Cantrill JA, Armstrong S, Cresswell K, Eden M, et al. A pharmacist-led information technology intervention for medication errors (PINCER): a multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis. Lancet. 2012;379:1310–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61817-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bosmans JE, Brook OH, van Hout HP, de Bruijne MC, Nieuwenhuyse H, Bouter LM, et al. Cost effectiveness of a pharmacy-based coaching programme to improve adherence to antidepressants. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25:25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Csikar JI, Douglas GV, Pavitt S, Hulme C. The cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation services provided by general dental practice, general medical practice, pharmacy and NHS Stop Smoking Services in the North of England. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2016;44:119–27.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cdoe.12195.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Elliott RA, Barber N, Clifford S, Horne R, Hartley E. The cost effectiveness of a telephone-based pharmacy advisory service to improve adherence to newly prescribed medicines. Pharm World Sci. 2008;30:17–23.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-007-9134-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hendrie D, Miller TR, Woodman RJ, Hoti K, Hughes J. Cost-effectiveness of reducing glycaemic episodes through community pharmacy management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Prim Prev. 2014;35:439–49.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-014-0368-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shireman TI, Svarstad BL. Cost-effectiveness of Wisconsin TEAM model for improving adherence and hypertension control in black patients. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2003;2016(56):389–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2016.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Simpson SH, Lier DA, Majumdar SR, Tsuyuki RT, Lewanczuk RZ, Spooner R, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of adding pharmacists to primary care teams to reduce cardiovascular risk in patients with Type 2 diabetes: results from a randomized controlled trial. Diabet Med. 2015;32:899–906.  https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.12692.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sinclair HK, Silcock J, Bond CM, Lennox AS, Winfield AJ. The cost-effectiveness of intensive pharmaceutical intervention in assisting people to stop smoking. Int J Pharm Pract. 1999;7:107–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thavorn K, Chaiyakunapruk N. A cost-effectiveness analysis of a community pharmacist-based smoking cessation programme in Thailand. Tob Control. 2008;17:177–82.  https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.2007.022368.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tran MT, Holdford DA, Kennedy DT, Small RE. Modeling the cost-effectiveness of a smoking-cessation program in a community pharmacy practice. Pharmacotherapy. 2002;22:1623–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Akinbosoye OE, Taitel MS, Grana J, Hill J, Wade RL. Improving medication adherence and health care outcomes in a commercial population through a community pharmacy. Popul Health Manag. 2016;19:454–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Crealey GE, McElnay JC, Maguire TA, O’Neill C. Costs and effects associated with a community pharmacy-based smoking-cessation programme. Pharmacoeconomics. 1998;14:323–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Desborough JA, Sach T, Bhattacharya D, Holland RC, Wright DJ. A cost-consequences analysis of an adherence focused pharmacist-led medication review service. Int J Pharm Pract. 2012;20:41–9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-7174.2011.00161.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marciante KD, Gardner JS, Veenstra DL, Sullivan SD. Modeling the cost and outcomes of pharmacist-prescribed emergency contraception. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:1443–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Munroe WP, Kunz K, Dalmady-Israel C, Potter L, Schonfeld WH. Economic evaluation of pharmacist involvement in disease management in a community pharmacy setting. Clin Ther. 1997;19:113–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rashed SM, Goldstein S, Tolley EA, Wilson-Relyea BJ. Cost outcomes of diabetes education in a specialized community pharmacy. Am J Pharm Benef. 2010;2:421–8.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rodriguez de Bittner M, Chirikov VV, Breunig IM, Zaghab RW, Shaya FT. Clinical effectiveness and cost savings in diabetes care, supported by pharmacist counselling. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2017;57:102.e4–108.e4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2016.08.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wright D, Twigg M, Thornley T. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease case finding by community pharmacists: a potential cost-effective public health intervention. Int J Pharm Pract. 2015;23:83–5.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ijpp.12161.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cote I, Gregoire JP, Moisan J, Chabot I, Lacroix G. A pharmacy-based health promotion programme in hypertension: cost-benefit analysis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2003;21:415–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Scott A, Tinelli M, Bond C, Community Pharmacy Medicines Management Evaluation T. Costs of a community pharmacist-led medicines management service for patients with coronary heart disease in England: healthcare system and patient perspectives. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25:397–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Moullin JC, Sabater-Hernandez D, Fernandez-Llimos F, Benrimoj SI. Defining professional pharmacy services in community pharmacy. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2013;9:989–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2013.02.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1687.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Delgado-Rodriguez M, Llorca J. Bias. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58:635–41.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2003.008466.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schneeweiss S, Avorn J. A review of uses of health care utilization databases for epidemiologic research on therapeutics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:323–37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.10.012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ho AMH, Phelan R, Mizubuti GB, Murdoch JAC, Wickett S, Ho AK, et al. Bias in before–after studies: narrative overview for anesthesiologists. Anesth Analg. 2018;126:1755–62.  https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002705.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Morton V, Torgerson DJ. Effect of regression to the mean on decision making in health care. BMJ. 2003;326:1083–4.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7398.1083.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McCambridge J, Witton J, Elbourne DR. Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:267–77.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.015.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K. Decision modelling for health economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Morrison A, Polisena J, Husereau D, Moulton K, Clark M, Fiander M, et al. The effect of English-language restriction on systematic review-based meta-analyses: a systematic review of empirical studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:138–44.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462312000086.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Canadian Pharmacists AssociationOttawaCanada
  2. 2.School of Epidemiology and Public HealthUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations