Considerations for conducting a scoping review in pharmacy education.

Interrogating the literature is among the first steps a researcher undertakes when actuating a research project or also when any scholar might seek to know what has been done in an area, best practices for conducting a certain activity, or simply to seek answers for a question ranging from one's own personal curiosity to those that might affect departmental or institutional guidance. Decisions on the type of review process to undertake is one that is not taken lightly. This methods commentary outlines the reasons for conducting a scoping review versus a systematic review for topics related to pharmacy education. Considerations for conducting the scoping review are outlined including considerations for writing a protocol prior to conducting a scoping review, to potential platforms to use for transparency of sharing data, processes related to guidelines for data extraction and types of search strategies utilized

Systematic review on quality control for drug management programs: Is quality reported in the literature?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Maintaining quality of care while managing limited healthcare resources is an ongoing challenge in healthcare. The objective of this study was to evaluate how the impact of drug management programs is reported in the literature and to identify potentially existing quality standards.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This analysis relates to the published research on the impact of drug management on economic, clinical, or humanistic outcomes in managed care, indemnity insurance, VA, or Medicaid in the USA published between 1996 and 2007. Included articles were systematically analyzed for study objective, study endpoints, and drug management type. They were further categorized by drug management tool, primary objective, and study endpoints.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>None of the 76 included publications assessed the overall quality of drug management tools. The impact of 9 different drug management tools used alone or in combination was studied in pharmacy claims, medical claims, electronic medical records or survey data from either patient, plan or provider perspective using an average of 2.1 of 11 possible endpoints. A total of 68% of the studies reported the impact on plan focused endpoints, while the clinical, the patient or the provider perspective were studied to a much lower degree (45%, 42% and 12% of the studies). Health outcomes were only accounted for in 9.2% of the studies.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Comprehensive assessment of quality considering plan, patient and clinical outcomes is not yet applied. There is no defined quality standard. Benchmarks including health outcomes should be determined and used to improve the overall clinical and economic effectiveness of drug management programs.</p

Barriers to pharmacists adopting professional responsibilities that support the appropriate and safe use of dietary supplements in the United States: Perspectives of key stakeholders.

PURPOSE:Complementary health approaches including the use of dietary supplements (DS) such as vitamin, mineral, nutritional, and herbal supplements are popular in the United States. Beyond a statement issued by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) in 2004, knowledge about the role of pharmacists related to DS use is largely unknown. The objectives of this study were to identify pharmacists' and other key stakeholders' perceptions and opinions about assuming roles that ensure the appropriate and safe use of DS. METHODS:A grounded theory approach involving in-depth, semi-structured key informant audio-recorded phone interviews with 12 practicing pharmacists and 10 key stakeholders were conducted. Key themes were identified using open coding, grouping, and categorizing. RESULTS:Participants believed the majority of their patients self-select and purchase DS from a pharmacy, often in conjunction with conventional medicines, and reported concerns about the regulatory standards, efficacy, and safety of DS. Despite acknowledging their ethical and professional responsibilities regarding DS, as identified by the ASHP statement and other sources, the majority of pharmacists are not expecting their profession to adopt these in the near future because of multiple barriers. CONCLUSIONS:There is a substantial disconnect between awareness of DS use and pharmacists adopting professional responsibilities regarding DS. The barriers identified are multifaceted, indicating the need for a joint effort from key stakeholders in developing a coordinated approach to supporting pharmacists in their practice efforts to ensure the appropriate and safe use of DS