A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of collaborative practice between community pharmacist and general practitioner on asthma management

Naeem Mubarak, Ernieda Md Hatah, Tahir Mehmood Khan, Che Suraya Zin

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Objective: This systematic review aims to investigate the impact of collaborative practice between community pharmacist (CP) and general practitioner (GP) in asthma management. Methods: A systematic search was performed across 10 databases (PubMed, Medline/Ovid, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, PsycARTICLES®, Science Direct, Education Resource Information Centre, PRO-Quest), and grey literature using selected MeSH and key words, such as “community pharmacist”, “general practitioner”, and “medicine use review”. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed by Cochrane risk of bias tool. All studies reporting any of the clinical, humanistic, and economical outcomes using collaborative practice between CPs and GPs in management of asthma, such as CPs conducting medications reviews, patient referrals or providing education and counseling, were included. Results: A total of 23 studies (six RCTs, four C-RCT, three controlled interventions, seven prepost, and three case control) were included. In total, 11/14 outcomes were concluded in favor of CP-GP collaborative interventions with different magnitude of effect size. Outcomes, such as asthma severity, asthma control, asthma symptoms, PEFR, SABA usage, hospital visit, adherence, and quality of life (QoL) (Asthma Quality-of-Life Questionnaire [AQLQ]; Living with Asthma Questionnaire [LWAQ]) demonstrated a small effect size (d≥0.2), while inhalation technique, ED visit, and asthma knowledge witnessed medium effect sizes (ES) (d≥0.5). In addition to that, inhalation technique yielded large ES (d≥0.8) in RCTs subgroup analysis. However, three outcomes, FEV, corticosteroids usage, and preventer-to-reliever ratio, did not hold significant ES (d<0.2) and, thus, remain inconclusive. The collaboration was shown to be value for money in the economic studies in narrative synthesis, however, the limited number of studies hinder pooling of data in meta-analysis. Conclusion: The findings from this review established a comprehensive evidence base in support of the positive impact of collaborative practice between CP and GP in the management of asthma.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)109-153
Number of pages45
JournalJournal of Asthma and Allergy
Volume12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2019

Fingerprint

Pharmacists
General Practitioners
Meta-Analysis
Asthma
Quality of Life
Inhalation
Literature
Education
Peak Expiratory Flow Rate
Information Centers
PubMed
Counseling
Adrenal Cortex Hormones
Referral and Consultation
Economics
Medicine
Databases

Keywords

  • Asthma
  • Clinical outcomes
  • Collaborative care
  • Community pharmacist
  • General practitioner
  • Inter-professional collaboration

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Immunology and Allergy
  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Cite this

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of collaborative practice between community pharmacist and general practitioner on asthma management. / Mubarak, Naeem; Md Hatah, Ernieda; Khan, Tahir Mehmood; Zin, Che Suraya.

In: Journal of Asthma and Allergy, Vol. 12, 01.01.2019, p. 109-153.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{af2a9ae054294fbaa7f0ff7b7fe753bf,
title = "A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of collaborative practice between community pharmacist and general practitioner on asthma management",
abstract = "Objective: This systematic review aims to investigate the impact of collaborative practice between community pharmacist (CP) and general practitioner (GP) in asthma management. Methods: A systematic search was performed across 10 databases (PubMed, Medline/Ovid, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, PsycARTICLES{\circledR}, Science Direct, Education Resource Information Centre, PRO-Quest), and grey literature using selected MeSH and key words, such as “community pharmacist”, “general practitioner”, and “medicine use review”. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed by Cochrane risk of bias tool. All studies reporting any of the clinical, humanistic, and economical outcomes using collaborative practice between CPs and GPs in management of asthma, such as CPs conducting medications reviews, patient referrals or providing education and counseling, were included. Results: A total of 23 studies (six RCTs, four C-RCT, three controlled interventions, seven prepost, and three case control) were included. In total, 11/14 outcomes were concluded in favor of CP-GP collaborative interventions with different magnitude of effect size. Outcomes, such as asthma severity, asthma control, asthma symptoms, PEFR, SABA usage, hospital visit, adherence, and quality of life (QoL) (Asthma Quality-of-Life Questionnaire [AQLQ]; Living with Asthma Questionnaire [LWAQ]) demonstrated a small effect size (d≥0.2), while inhalation technique, ED visit, and asthma knowledge witnessed medium effect sizes (ES) (d≥0.5). In addition to that, inhalation technique yielded large ES (d≥0.8) in RCTs subgroup analysis. However, three outcomes, FEV, corticosteroids usage, and preventer-to-reliever ratio, did not hold significant ES (d<0.2) and, thus, remain inconclusive. The collaboration was shown to be value for money in the economic studies in narrative synthesis, however, the limited number of studies hinder pooling of data in meta-analysis. Conclusion: The findings from this review established a comprehensive evidence base in support of the positive impact of collaborative practice between CP and GP in the management of asthma.",
keywords = "Asthma, Clinical outcomes, Collaborative care, Community pharmacist, General practitioner, Inter-professional collaboration",
author = "Naeem Mubarak and {Md Hatah}, Ernieda and Khan, {Tahir Mehmood} and Zin, {Che Suraya}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2147/JAA.S202183",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "109--153",
journal = "Journal of Asthma and Allergy",
issn = "1178-6965",
publisher = "Dove Medical Press Ltd.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of collaborative practice between community pharmacist and general practitioner on asthma management

AU - Mubarak, Naeem

AU - Md Hatah, Ernieda

AU - Khan, Tahir Mehmood

AU - Zin, Che Suraya

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Objective: This systematic review aims to investigate the impact of collaborative practice between community pharmacist (CP) and general practitioner (GP) in asthma management. Methods: A systematic search was performed across 10 databases (PubMed, Medline/Ovid, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, PsycARTICLES®, Science Direct, Education Resource Information Centre, PRO-Quest), and grey literature using selected MeSH and key words, such as “community pharmacist”, “general practitioner”, and “medicine use review”. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed by Cochrane risk of bias tool. All studies reporting any of the clinical, humanistic, and economical outcomes using collaborative practice between CPs and GPs in management of asthma, such as CPs conducting medications reviews, patient referrals or providing education and counseling, were included. Results: A total of 23 studies (six RCTs, four C-RCT, three controlled interventions, seven prepost, and three case control) were included. In total, 11/14 outcomes were concluded in favor of CP-GP collaborative interventions with different magnitude of effect size. Outcomes, such as asthma severity, asthma control, asthma symptoms, PEFR, SABA usage, hospital visit, adherence, and quality of life (QoL) (Asthma Quality-of-Life Questionnaire [AQLQ]; Living with Asthma Questionnaire [LWAQ]) demonstrated a small effect size (d≥0.2), while inhalation technique, ED visit, and asthma knowledge witnessed medium effect sizes (ES) (d≥0.5). In addition to that, inhalation technique yielded large ES (d≥0.8) in RCTs subgroup analysis. However, three outcomes, FEV, corticosteroids usage, and preventer-to-reliever ratio, did not hold significant ES (d<0.2) and, thus, remain inconclusive. The collaboration was shown to be value for money in the economic studies in narrative synthesis, however, the limited number of studies hinder pooling of data in meta-analysis. Conclusion: The findings from this review established a comprehensive evidence base in support of the positive impact of collaborative practice between CP and GP in the management of asthma.

AB - Objective: This systematic review aims to investigate the impact of collaborative practice between community pharmacist (CP) and general practitioner (GP) in asthma management. Methods: A systematic search was performed across 10 databases (PubMed, Medline/Ovid, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, PsycARTICLES®, Science Direct, Education Resource Information Centre, PRO-Quest), and grey literature using selected MeSH and key words, such as “community pharmacist”, “general practitioner”, and “medicine use review”. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed by Cochrane risk of bias tool. All studies reporting any of the clinical, humanistic, and economical outcomes using collaborative practice between CPs and GPs in management of asthma, such as CPs conducting medications reviews, patient referrals or providing education and counseling, were included. Results: A total of 23 studies (six RCTs, four C-RCT, three controlled interventions, seven prepost, and three case control) were included. In total, 11/14 outcomes were concluded in favor of CP-GP collaborative interventions with different magnitude of effect size. Outcomes, such as asthma severity, asthma control, asthma symptoms, PEFR, SABA usage, hospital visit, adherence, and quality of life (QoL) (Asthma Quality-of-Life Questionnaire [AQLQ]; Living with Asthma Questionnaire [LWAQ]) demonstrated a small effect size (d≥0.2), while inhalation technique, ED visit, and asthma knowledge witnessed medium effect sizes (ES) (d≥0.5). In addition to that, inhalation technique yielded large ES (d≥0.8) in RCTs subgroup analysis. However, three outcomes, FEV, corticosteroids usage, and preventer-to-reliever ratio, did not hold significant ES (d<0.2) and, thus, remain inconclusive. The collaboration was shown to be value for money in the economic studies in narrative synthesis, however, the limited number of studies hinder pooling of data in meta-analysis. Conclusion: The findings from this review established a comprehensive evidence base in support of the positive impact of collaborative practice between CP and GP in the management of asthma.

KW - Asthma

KW - Clinical outcomes

KW - Collaborative care

KW - Community pharmacist

KW - General practitioner

KW - Inter-professional collaboration

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85070499710&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85070499710&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2147/JAA.S202183

DO - 10.2147/JAA.S202183

M3 - Review article

VL - 12

SP - 109

EP - 153

JO - Journal of Asthma and Allergy

JF - Journal of Asthma and Allergy

SN - 1178-6965

ER -