Nature and perceived benefits of patient-initiated consultations in community pharmacies: A population survey.

Background: The role of community pharmacists in enhancing patient care has received increased attention. However, there is a paucity of literature on the nature, frequency, and perceived impacts of patient-initiated consultations in community pharmacies. Objectives: We aim to describe the profile of patients seeking advice from community pharmacists as well as the nature and impact of those consultations. Methods: A survey was conducted with Quebec adults who had consulted a pharmacist in the previous four weeks. Data was collected in 2017 and 1104 agreed to participate (25.3%). Of those, 93 were withdrawn due to incomplete data and 98 failed to meet the inclusion criteria. Sample representativeness was ensured by quota sampling (gender, age) after stratification by region. Results: Among the 913 respondents, 46% had consulted a pharmacist more than once during the four weeks prior to the survey. Individuals with a university degree consulted less often than those without (1.97 vs. 2.17 times; t = 2.0; p < .05) and participants with one or several chronic diseases consulted more frequently than those having no chronic disease (2.18 vs. 1.94 times; t = 5.7; p < .05). Older adults (55+) consulted more often for themselves compared to younger (18-34) and middle-aged (35-54) adults (1.53 vs. 1.31 vs. 1.44 times; F = 4.0; p < .05). Concerning the consultations, 58% were related to medications and 33% to health problems. In terms of impacts, 81% of consultations were perceived to have prevented the use of other healthcare resources. Patient satisfaction with their consultations was high with an average score of 8.75 on a 10-point scale (SD = 1.63). Conclusions: Findings reveal that the reasons for consulting a community pharmacist are diverse, most being related to medications or health issues. Patients reported that pharmacists were able to manage most consultations without referring them to other health care resources or professionals, and their satisfaction with their consultation was high. MeSH terms: Community pharmacy; counselling; patient satisfaction; primary health care; surveys and questionnaires.

Patient-initiated consultations in community pharmacies.

BACKGROUND: Mobilizing pharmacists practicing in community pharmacies as a new player in primary care has recently emerged as a cost-effective strategy for clinical consultations related to minor ailments. However, little is known about these consultations initiated by patients. The objectives of this study were to describe patient initiated consultations in community pharmacies, and to estimate the impact of these consultations on care-seeking behaviors of patients. METHODS: A cross sectional study was conducted in 11 retail pharmacies in Quebec, Canada, from October until December 2017, using two data sources: 1) an application and 2) structured interviews. Pharmacists had to compile all consultations in the app during a 4 week-period. Consenting patients were interviewed on the day of the consultation and one week after. Descriptive statistics on the number of consultations were calculated, as well as on the recommendation and the experience of the patient. RESULTS: A total number of 4994 consultations were entered in the app by 55 pharmacists, with an average of 18 consultations (SD = 7) per pharmacy per day. Of the 900 patients consented to participate to the study, 600 (67%) completed the two interviews. Pharmacists reported that they recommended another healthcare resource to patients (e.g. emergency department (ED), walk-in clinic) in only 15% of cases. In the week following the consultation, 105 (18%) patients reported that they avoided going to the ED as a result of the consultation. Patients in rural regions or consulting in a pharmacy far from a medical clinic were more likely to report avoiding an ED visit as a result of the consultation with the pharmacist. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that patients are seeking advice from pharmacists for a variety of health care concerns and that pharmacists are able to manage most of these consultations, with a high level of patient satisfaction.

Guidelines for completing the EURONHEED transferability information checklists.

The structure and methods to complete and derive a quality score from the European Network of Health Economic Evaluation Databases (EURONHEED) transferability information checklists for published economic evaluations were reported and discussed in a previous paper (Boulenger et al. in Eur J Health Econ 6, 334-346, 2005). Within the same paper, the use of the checklists was illustrated through their application to a sample of economic evaluations conducted in France and UK. The transferability information subchecklist, consisting of 16 items from the original 42-point checklist, and methods used to derive it, were validated among 16 health economists across Europe participating in the EURONHEED project. Recent correspondence with other researchers, however, indicates that the checklists are now being utilised in empirical work and the methodology of assessing transferability and generalisability. This supplementary paper provides full details of the guidelines that have been developed and recently updated by the authors, such that the overall and subchecklists can be more widely and consistently completed and utilised. We also briefly discuss associated issues such as weighting of items in the checklists and give further clarifications regarding what we consider the most appropriate applications of the checklists to be.

Can economic evaluations be made more transferable?

Several commentators have identified the lack of generalisability and transferability of economic evaluation results. The aims of this study were: (a) to develop a checklist to assess the level of generalisability and transferability of economic evaluations; (b) to assess the generalisability and transferability of economic evaluations between the UK and France using the checklist; (c) to identify reasons for any lack of transferability and generalisability; (d) to assess how the transferability and generalisability of economic evaluations can be improved; and (e) to outline ways in which databases of economic evaluations and journals can assist in this area. The checklist was developed using previous work and the templates of the NHS EED and CODECS databases. A sub-checklist of essential items was then derived. Validation of the two checklists was undertaken with Health Economists participating in the EURONHEED project. Economic evaluations involving the UK and France were then located and assessed using the checklist. A summary score for each study was calculated based on the percentage of correctly reported (applicable) points, and the results in the empirical analysis compared to identify differences. The extended checklist includes 42 items, and the sub-checklist 16 items. Twenty-five economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria for the empirical analysis. In the extended checklist the mean score was 66.9+/-13.6%. The results for the sub-checklist were very similar. The analysis revealed that costing, assessments of generalisability by the author(s), assessment of data variability, discounting, study population, and the reporting of effectiveness are areas that need more attention. Differences in cost-effectiveness results are often accounted for by price or organisational differences. The developed checklists are useful in assessing the generalisability and transferability of economic evaluations. In order to improve the generalisability and transferability of economic evaluations authors need to be more explicit and detailed in describing and reporting their studies. If they are to provide added value to their users, international databases of economic evaluations should systematically assess the generalisability and transferability of studies. Further research is in progress on producing a weighted version of the checklist.

The diffusion of health economics knowledge in Europe : The EURONHEED (European Network of Health Economics Evaluation Database) project.

This paper overviews the EURONHEED (EUROpean Network of Health Economics Evaluation Databases) project. Launched in 2003, this project is funded by the EU. Its aim is to create a network of national and international databases dedicated to health economic evaluation of health services and innovations. Seven centres (France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK) are involved covering 17 countries. The network is based on two existing databases, the French CODECS (COnnaissance et Decision en EConomie de la Sante) database, created in 2000 by the French Health Economists Association (College des Economistes de la Sante), and the UK NHS-EED (NHS Economic Electronic Database), run by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, England. The network will provide bibliographic records of published full health economic evaluation studies (cost-benefit, cost-utility and cost-effectiveness studies) as well as cost studies, methodological articles and review papers. Moreover, a structured abstract of full evaluation studies will be provided to users, allowing them access to a detailed description of each study and to a commentary stressing the implications and limits, for decision making, of the study. Access will be free of charge. The database features and its ease of access (via the internet: http://www.euronheed.org) should facilitate the diffusion of existing economic evidence on health services and the generalisation of common standards in the field at the European level, thereby improving the quality, generalisability and transferability of results across countries.

The European Network of Health Economic Evaluation Databases (EURO NHEED) Project.

This paper provides a first outline of the European Network of Health Economic Evaluation Databases (EURO NHEED) project. The project is funded by the European Commission and will implement, in 7 European centres based in France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom, databases on the economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. The network will be based on two existing and well-established resources, namely the UK's NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), and France's Connaissances et Décision en EConomie de la Santé (CODECS) database. EURO NHEED will initially cover 17 European countries and will provide its users with bibliographic records, detailing the main characteristics of all included studies. In addition, structured abstracts will be provided for articles identified as full economic evaluations (cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness or cost-utility), which will offer a detailed critique of the findings and the methodology used. These databases will be accessible free of charge on the Internet. The EURO NHEED project is the first attempt to develop such a resource on a multi-national basis. The project will bring together Health Economists and Information Scientists from the European Union and beyond and is anticipated to facilitate a number of benefits and advances in the field of Health Economics. These include harmonisation and increased understanding of the theory and methodology of economic evaluation in healthcare, the interpretation of the generalisability of studies to target settings, and the influence of healthcare system variations among the European countries. The project will therefore advance the state of the art in collecting, summarising, critiquing and disseminating economic evaluations of healthcare conducted within Europe.