Intervention description of pharmacist-facilitated medication reviews in Nordic primary care settings: a scoping review

TL;DR

This study reviews how well pharmacist-led medication reviews are described in Nordic healthcare, finding that most studies lack enough detail to replicate the interventions.

Contribution

The study identifies gaps in the description of pharmacist-facilitated medication reviews in Nordic primary care, emphasizing the need for standardized reporting.

Findings

Only two out of sixteen studies fully reported pharmacists' qualifications and training.

Twelve studies omitted details on cost, dose, or duration of the interventions.

Only one study evaluated intervention fidelity, while 15 did not address it.

Abstract

Multicomponent interventions are increasingly utilized to tackle the complexity of aging and co-morbid patients. However, descriptions of interventions are generally poor, making it difficult for healthcare providers to implement successful programs.

This study aimed to explore the completeness of intervention description of pharmacist-facilitated medication reviews (MRs) in Nordic primary care settings.

We performed a scoping review of studies reporting on pharmacist-facilitated MRs in Nordic primary care settings. Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched on 24 January 2024. We used Arksey and O’Mally’s framework for scoping studies and applied an adapted version of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist to evaluate intervention reporting. The Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe (PCNE) classification of MR levels was used to identify the components of different MRs.

Sixteen studies were included in this scoping review. The studies were conducted in Sweden (n = 7), Norway (n = 6), Finland (n = 2) and Denmark (n = 1). Information on the participating pharmacists’ expertise, qualifications and training was fully reported in only two studies. Twelve studies did not provide any information related to intervention cost, dose or duration, making it challenging to estimate the economic impact of the intervention. Only one study made an evaluation of intervention fidelity. Conversely, 15 studies lacked information on this topic which can lead to inaccurate conclusions about the program’s effectiveness.

The studies included in this scoping review do not provide sufficient MR information for intervention replication. We recommend that pharmacy trials use reporting checklists to increase the replicability and transferability of effective interventions.

Figures