Rethinking the gold standard - The feasibility of randomized controlled trials within health services effectiveness research.

BACKGROUND: An evidence-based randomized controlled trial for a novel Pharmacy Asthma Service was tested in 3 Australian states. Positive asthma outcomes were achieved after the 12-month intervention, albeit in both the intervention and comparator arms. The current investigation uses a mixed methods approach to 1) qualitatively explore how comparator arm pharmacists implemented the trial protocol and 2) quantitatively examine how this may have impacted patient outcomes in this trial. METHODS: Post-intervention semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 20 pharmacists, representing 21 of 37 (57%) comparator arm pharmacies that completed the trial. Based on these interviews, pharmacies were classified as 'adherent' to the trial protocol (reporting no interventions other than general practitioner referral) or 'non-adherent' (reporting at least one extra intervention to the trial protocol), or 'inconclusive'. These subgroups were compared descriptively in relation to patient outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 33% (n = 8/24) of the comparator pharmacies who were interviewed (n = 21) or determined to have monitoring by a project officer to ensure adherence to the protocol (n = 3) were classified as adherent), 58% (n = 14/24) as non-adherent, 8% inconclusive (n = 2/24). While all patients commenced with uncontrolled asthma (Asthma Control Questionnaire score (ACQ) > 1.5), after 12 months the mean ACQ score for patients from adherent comparator pharmacies ('true control') was 1.8 (still uncontrolled asthma) compared to a score of 1.4 (controlled asthma) in the non-adherent comparator group. Quality of life significantly improved in the non-adherent comparator group over the 12 months of the trial. CONCLUSION: The majority of pharmacists in the comparator arm who were interviewed, introduced their own interventions, which may have influenced the outcomes of the trial. The naturalistic setting of the study was not protective against these confounders. These findings question the feasibility of comparator arms within primary care settings and that alternative study designs should be considered when designing future intervention studies in pharmacy practice.

Pharmacy Diabetes Screening Trial: protocol for a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial to compare three screening methods for undiagnosed type 2 diabetes in Australian community pharmacy.

INTRODUCTION: With the rising prevalence of type 2 diabetes in Australia, screening and earlier diagnosis is needed to provide opportunities to intervene with evidence-based lifestyle and treatment options to reduce the individual, social and economic impact of the disease. The objectives of the Pharmacy Diabetes Screening Trial are to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three screening models for type 2 diabetes in a previously undiagnosed population. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Pharmacy Diabetes Screening Trial is a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial to be conducted in 363 community pharmacies across metropolitan, regional and remote areas of Australia, randomly allocated by geographical clusters to one of three groups, each with 121 pharmacies and 10 304 screening participants. The three groups are: group A: risk assessment using a validated tool (AUSDRISK); group B: AUSDRISK assessment followed by point-of-care glycated haemoglobin testing; and group C: AUSDRISK assessment followed by point-of-care blood glucose testing. The primary clinical outcome measure is the proportion of newly diagnosed cases of type 2 diabetes. Primary outcome comparisons will be conducted using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to account for clustering. The secondary clinical outcomes measures are the proportion of those who (1) are referred to the general practitioner (GP), (2) take up referral to the GP, (3) are diagnosed with pre-diabetes, that is, impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose and (4) are newly diagnosed with either diabetes or pre-diabetes. The economic outcome measure is the average cost (direct and indirect) per confirmed new case of diagnosed type 2 diabetes based on the incremental net trial-based costs of service delivery and the associated incremental longer term health benefits from a health funder perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committees at University of Sydney and Deakin University. Results will be available on the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement website and will be published in peer reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12616001240437; Pre-results.

General practitioner-pharmacist interactions in professional pharmacy services.

Australian community pharmacies offer a range of professional pharmacy services (PPS) which include Home Medicines Review (HMR) and the Diabetes Medication Assistance Service (DMAS). The extent of interaction and collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists in the context of these services is unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate (1) the nature and extent of interactions between GPs and community pharmacists and; (2) the factors that influence these interactions in the context of PPS. Individual semi-structured face-to-face and telephone interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 15 GPs and 15 pharmacists in rural and metropolitan areas of New South Wales, Australia. The results indicated that involvement in PPS resulted in a perceived increase in the level of interactions between the pharmacist and GP. Factors found which may influence collaborative behaviour in PPS include interactional, practitioner and environmental determinants. These factors are in line with what has previously been reported however, facilitators of collaboration in the primary care, PPS context included additional environmental factors such as the presence of rules and protocols, interprofessional continuing education and the availability of adequate remuneration. Attention to these environmental factors as well as the more established interactional and practitioner determinants will improve collaboration in PPS.