Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The challenges of outcome research

  • Commentary
  • Published:
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cognitive pharmacy trials seek to identify interventions that benefit patients. The potential benefits of an intervention are primarily evaluated by outcome measures. The question then is: What is the optimal outcome measure? Unfortunately, the question remains unsolved. Several factors must be taken into consideration when conducting outcome research—particularly within cognitive pharmacy trials. The interventions are often complex and non-specific, and seek to improve symptom control, optimise the use of medications and reduce medication-related risks. “Hard” endpoints, such as mortality and hospital admissions, may not be the optimal outcome measures, since cognitive pharmacy interventions are unlikely to result in changes in these measures. Instead, adverse drug events or “soft” endpoints, such as quality of life, drug-related problems and patient satisfaction may be appropriate choices of outcome measures. Finally, it is not only outcome measures that may pose a challenge when conducting outcome research; other essential components include study design, type of intervention, the patient population, etc.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wong ICK. RESPECT Team. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate complex healthcare interventions—a case study. Pharm World Sci. 2004;26(5):247–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Krska J, Rowe PH. Outcome measures: a sensitive approach. Int J Pharm Pract. 2010;18:125–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Graabaek T, Kjeldsen LJ. Medication reviews by clinical pharmacists at hospitals lead to improved patient outcomes: a systematic review. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2013;112(6):359–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Emmerton L, Marriot J, Bessell T, et al. Pharmacists and prescribing rights: review of international developments. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2005;8:217–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Frenk J. Obituary of avedis donabedian. Bull World Health Organ. 2000;70(12):1475.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Donabedian A. The quality of care: how can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988;121(11):1145–50.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Clarke M. Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews. Trials. 2007;8:39.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance. 2008: http://www.bmj.com/content/337/bmj.a1655.

  9. Bowling A. Research methods in health: investigating health and health services. 2nd ed. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Aronson JK. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2005;59(5):491–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Cohn JN. Introduction to surrogate markers. Circulation. 2004;109(25 Suppl 1):IV20–1.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wieczorek A, Rys P, Skrzekowska-Baran I, Malecki M. The role of surrogate endpoints in the evaluation of efficacy and safety of therapeutic interventions in diabetes mellitus. Rev Diabet Stud. 2008;5(3):128–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health-survery (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Farris KB. The impact of pharmacist interventions on health-related quality of life. Ann Pharmacother. 1999;33(11):1167–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Jepsen P, Johnsen SP, Gillman MW, Sørensen HT. Interpretation of observational studies. Heart. 2004;90:956–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Wiffen P. No evidence or evidence of no effect. Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2014;21(2):71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Krass I. Quasi experimental designs in pharmacist intervention research. IJCP 2016:1–8.

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lene Juel Kjeldsen.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kjeldsen, L.J., Nielsen, T.R.H. & Olesen, C. The challenges of outcome research. Int J Clin Pharm 38, 705–708 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-016-0293-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-016-0293-6

Keywords

Navigation