Dickson, K

Khatwa, M

Rees, R

Stansfield, C

Stokes, G

Thomas, J

English

UCL Discovery

 PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews The nature, effectiveness and appropriateness of public health service provision bycommunity pharmacies: a systematic reviewGillian Stokes, Rebecca Rees, Claire Stansfield, Kelly Dickson, Meena Khatwa, James Thomas  CitationGillian Stokes, Rebecca Rees, Claire Stansfield, Kelly Dickson, Meena Khatwa, James Thomas. The nature,effectiveness and appropriateness of public health service provision by community pharmacies: a systematic review.PROSPERO 2015:CRD42015029919 Available from  http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO_REBRANDING/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42015029919  Review question(s)What empirical research has been conducted, from 2000 onwards, into public health service provision by communitypharmacies?What are the characteristics of studies that investigate public health service provision in community pharmacies (i.e.country, questions addressed, intervention types, health condition, service provision, setting, and study designfeatures - including measures and conceptual frameworks used and additional demographic characteristics)?What is known about the effectiveness of the different public health service interventions delivered by communitypharmacies?What is known about the appropriateness (e.g. costs, other resources, accessibility/reach, ease of implementation andacceptability) of those interventions given what is known about community pharmacy provision in the UK?How does the research evidence fit within the current context of community pharmacy practice in the UK?What are the gaps in research evidence for key public health interventions (i.e. anti-microbial resistance)?SearchesIn order to seek literature from across the clinical disciplines as well as social sciences, we will search the followingdatabases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ASSIA, EconLit, HMIC, Cochrane Librarydatabases, Sociological Abstracts, Social Policy and Practice, and the EPPI Centre’s TRoPHI and DoPHER databases.We plan to supplement our searches with a website search, Google Scholar, and a brief search for UK theses. We will supplement the comprehensive bibliographic database searches for studies with: searches of web-sites, thescreening of reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. The suggested following topicspecific websites will be searched:Royal Pharmaceutical Society (http://www.rpharms.com/support/our-library.asp)General Pharmaceutical Council (https://www.pharmacyregulation.org/)Department of Health (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications)NHS Evidence (https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/)Pharmaceutical Service Negotiating Committee (http://www.psnc.org.uk) Pharmacy Research UK (http://www.pharmacyresearchuk.org/)  UK Faculty of Public Health (http://www.fph.org.uk/about_us)                               Page: 1 / 5OpenGrey (http://www.opengrey.ecu/)British Library EThOS (http://www.ethos.bl.uk/)UK Index to ThesesThe following non-UK websites will also be searched:American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (http://www.aaps.org/) American Pharmacist Association (http://www.pharmacist.com) Pharmaceutical Society of Australia (http://www.psa.org.au)Pharmaceutical Society of Western Australia (http://www.pswa.org.au) Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand (http://www.psnz.org.nz)  Pharmacy Council of New Zealand (http://www.pharmacycouncil.org.nz)  PSSA: Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa (http://www.pssa.org.za) South African Pharmacy Council (http://www.pharmcouncil.co.za) Website searching will be limited to sites that provide data in the English language due to available time and staffresources.A date limit of 2000-2015 will be applied to the search. A further limit will be that were possible we will select itemsthat have been published in the English language. The search strategy also excludes some non-OECD countries anddeveloping countries that appeared frequently when we conducted the test search. Studies that are solely indexed asbeing about animals are also excluded.Types of study to be includedThere are no restrictions on study type at this stage of the review. We will include: randomised controlled trials(RCT), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCT), evaluations of intervention processes and other studies ofstakeholder perspectives.Condition or domain being studiedCommunity pharmacy public health intervention provisionParticipants/ populationCommunity pharmacy practitioners, general populationIntervention(s), exposure(s)All public health interventions delivered within the community pharmacy setting to improve health outcomes.Comparator(s)/ controlNon-exposed group.ContextResearch conducted in OECD countries will be included.Research conducted in hospital pharmacies will be excluded.Outcome(s)Primary outcomes                               Page: 2 / 5Change in health behaviour, health status. To be defined after the mapping stage of the review has been conducted.Secondary outcomesNot applicable.Data extraction, (selection and coding)Reports of studies included in the in-depth review stage will be described using an independent coding frame adaptedfrom those used in previews reviews (e.g. Sutcliffe et al, 2014). The coding will aim to capture but not be limited to:study details (aims and objectives, setting, intervention type, duration of study etc.); study details (incl. design,population, demographics, participant recruitment, theoretical underpinnings etc.); study methods; and outcomesprocesses, perspective or services (measured). The data coding scheme will be piloted on a sample set of studies. Tworeviewers will extract outcomes and process data independently and will then meet to agree a version of the dataextraction. If agreement is not reached, a third reviewer will act as arbitrator. The descriptive aspects of studies willbe captured in detail by a single reviewer, with a second reviewer checking the accuracy of these data.Risk of bias (quality) assessmentAll studies included in the in-depth review will be assessed for quality using previously developed tools appropriatefor this review’s two types of research question. We will employ quality assessment tools designed for: 1) studies that evaluate intervention outcomes by assessing key biases that might arise that may impact on the resultsof evaluations (e.g. selection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias); 2) studies exploring perspectives, or observing cases of service provision that assess elements of rigour in sampling,data collection, data analysis, the grounding of findings in data, the breadth and/or depth achieved in the findings, andthe privileging of stakeholder perspectives.  Pairs of reviewers will independently assess each study and then meet to agree both the quality of the study and itsusefulness in helping to answer the questions proposed in the review. A third reviewer will act as arbitrator ininstances were agreement cannot be reached. The results of such assessments may result in further studies beingexcluded from the review, or a form of ‘sensitivity analysis’ to examine whether research findings differ according toquality.Strategy for data synthesisWe will conduct an in-depth analysis of research that presents, and where possible synthesise, evidence ofeffectiveness and appropriateness of the public health services identified by the Advisory Group as the focus of thereview. There will be two types of syntheses: 1) Effectiveness synthesis. Should there be sufficient data reported that can be argued to be sufficiently similar (e.g.in terms of services, demographics, etc.) and presented in an extractable format, we will combine findings aboutservice delivery and intervention effects in meta-analyses. However, there is a possibility that syntheses of effects willhave to be presented in narrative form. Narrative reporting would take the form of a thematic synthesis of outcomes,with findings grouped together by similar types of service or outcome. 2) Synthesis of intervention appropriateness. Narrative synthesis will be employed to report findings for the processevaluation again using methods developed in previous reviews.Analysis of subgroups or subsetsNone planned.Dissemination plansIn addition to the reports produced for the funders which will be made available for free on their website and the EPPI-Centre website. The review team plan to take up opportunities for knowledge exchange through presentation atsubstantive and methodological conferences, submission of one open access journal article, and any invitedpresentations originating from Advisory Group members or their networks.Contact details for further information                               Page: 3 / 5Ms StokesEPPI-CentreSocial Science Research UnitDepartment of Social ScienceUCL Institute of EducationUniversity College London 10 Woburn SquareWC1H ONRg.stokes@ioe.ac.ukOrganisational affiliation of the reviewNoneReview teamMs Gillian Stokes, EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, University College LondonMs Rebecca Rees, EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, University College LondonMiss Claire Stansfield, EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, University College LondonMiss Kelly Dickson, EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, University College LondonDr Meena Khatwa, EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, University College LondonProfessor James Thomas, EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, University College LondonAnticipated or actual start date01 November 2015Anticipated completion date30 June 2016Funding sources/sponsorsDepartment of Health, EnglandConflicts of interestNone knownLanguageEnglishCountryEnglandSubject index terms statusSubject indexing assigned by CRDSubject index termsCommunity Pharmacy Services; Humans; Pharmacies; United States; United States Public Health ServiceStage of reviewOngoing                               Page: 4 / 5Date of registration in PROSPERO17 December 2015Date of publication of this revision17 December 2015Stage of review at time of this submission Started CompletedPreliminary searches No   Yes Piloting of the study selection process   No   Yes Formal screening of search results against eligibility criteria   Yes   No Data extraction   No   No Risk of bias (quality) assessment   No   No Data analysis   No   No  PROSPEROInternational prospective register of systematic reviewsThe information in this record has been provided by the named contact for this review. CRD has accepted this information in goodfaith and registered the review in PROSPERO. CRD bears no responsibility or liability for the content of this registration record,any associated files or external websites. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)                               Page: 5 / 5

The nature, effectiveness and appropriateness of public health service provision by community pharmacies: a systematic review

https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1473856/1/CRD_Protocol%20GS%20Nature%2C%20effectiveness%20and%20appropriateness.pdf

The nature, effectiveness and appropriateness of public health service provision by community pharmacies: a systematic review

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UCL Discovery