The effects of community pharmacy-delivered public health interventions on population health and health inequalities: A review of reviews.

Community pharmacies have great potential to deliver services aimed at promoting health and preventing disease, and are well placed in deprived communities. This review of reviews aimed to assess the effectiveness of community pharmacy-delivered public health services and assess how they impact on inequalities in health using PROGRESS-Plus characteristics. Twenty databases were searched from their start date until January 2018. The quality of the included articles was determined using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool (AMSTAR 2). Fifteen systematic reviews were identified reporting 157 unique primary studies. There were a number of community pharmacy initiatives with positive intervention effects on health outcomes. These services were predominantly focused on primary disease prevention, and included smoking cessation, weight management programmes, syringe exchange programmes, and inoculation services. This review supports the development of some community pharmacy public health services. At present, little is known how community pharmacy-delivered public health interventions impact on health inequalities. It would be prudent for future studies to address this by explicitly reporting outcomes according to the PROGRESS-Plus framework. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017056264.

Pharmacy-based management for depression in adults.

BACKGROUND: It is common for peoples not to take antidepressant medication as prescribed, with around 50% of people likely to prematurely discontinue taking their medication after six months. Community pharmacists may be well placed to have a role in antidepressant management because of their unique pharmacotherapeutic knowledge and ease of access for people. Pharmacists are in an ideal position to offer proactive interventions to people with depression or depressive symptoms. However, the effectiveness and acceptability of existing pharmacist-based interventions is not yet well understood. The degree to which a pharmacy-based management approach might be beneficial, acceptable to people, and effective as part of the overall management for those with depression is, to date, unclear. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) will help answer these questions and add important knowledge to the currently sparse evidence base. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of pharmacy-based management interventions compared with active control (e.g. patient information materials or any other active intervention delivered by someone other than the pharmacist or the pharmacy team), waiting list, or treatment as usual (e.g. standard pharmacist advice or antidepressant education, signposting to support available in primary care services, brief medication counselling, and/or (self-)monitoring of medication adherence offered by a healthcare professional outside the pharmacy team) at improving depression outcomes in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMD-CTR) to June 2016; the Cochrane Library (Issue 11, 2018); and Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to December 2018. We searched theses and dissertation databases and international trial registers for unpublished/ongoing trials. We applied no restrictions on date, language, or publication status to the searches.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all RCTs and cluster-RCTs where a pharmacy-based intervention was compared with treatment as usual, waiting list, or an alternative intervention in the management of depression in adults over 16 years of age. Eligible studies had to report at least one of the following outcomes at any time point: depression symptom change, acceptability of the intervention, diagnosis of depression, non-adherence to medication, frequency of primary care appointments, quality of life, social functioning, or adverse events.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently, and in duplicate, conducted all stages of study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment (including GRADE). We discussed disagreements within the team until we reached consensus. Where data did not allow meta-analyses, we synthesised results narratively.  MAIN RESULTS: Twelve studies (2215 participants) met the inclusion criteria and compared pharmacy-based management with treatment as usual. Two studies (291 participants) also included an active control (both used patient information leaflets providing information about the prescribed antidepressant). Neither of these studies reported depression symptom change. A narrative synthesis of results on acceptability of the intervention was inconclusive, with one study reporting better acceptability of pharmacy-based management and the other better acceptability of the active control. One study reported that participants in the pharmacy-based management group had better medication adherence than the control participants. One study reported adverse events with no difference between groups. The studies reported no other outcomes. Meta-analyses comparing pharmacy-based management with treatment as usual showed no evidence of a difference in the effect of the intervention on depression symptom change (dichotomous data; improvement in symptoms yes/no: risk ratio (RR), 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.05; 4 RCTs, 475 participants; moderate-quality evidence; continuous data: standard mean difference (SMD) -0.04, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10; 5 RCTs, 718 participants; high-certainty evidence), or acceptability of the intervention (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.45; 12 RCTs, 2072 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The risk of non-adherence was reduced in participants receiving pharmacy-based management (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.87; 6 RCTs, 911 participants; high-certainty evidence). We were unable to meta-analyse data on diagnosis of depression, frequency of primary care appointments, quality of life, or social functioning. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of a difference between pharmacy-based management for depression in adults compared with treatment as usual in facilitating depression symptom change. Based on numbers of participants leaving the trials early, there may be no difference in acceptability between pharmacy-based management and controls. However, there was uncertainty due to the low-certainty evidence.

Assessing the value for money of an integrated health and wellbeing service in the UK.

Lay health workers have been utilized to deliver health promotion programmes in a variety of settings. However, few studies have sought to determine whether these programmes represent value for money, particularly in a UK context. The present study involved an economic evaluation of Wellbeing for Life, an integrated health and wellbeing service in northern England. The service combined one-to-one interventions delivered by lay health workers (known as health trainers), group wellbeing interventions, volunteering opportunities and other community development activities. Value for money was assessed using an established economic model developed with input from a panel of commissioners and providers, and the main data source was the national health trainer data collection and reporting system. Between June 2015 and January 2017, behaviour change outcomes (i.e. whether client goals in relation to diet, physical activity, smoking or other behaviours, had been achieved) were recorded for 2433 of the 3179 individuals who accessed one-to-one interventions. The level of achievement observed gave an estimated total health gain of 287.7 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). In addition, there were 4669 health-promoting events, five asset mapping projects and 1595 occurrences of signposting to other services. Combining the value of individual behaviour change with the value of these additional activities gave an overall net cost per QALY gained of £3900 and a total estimated societal value of at least £3.45 for every £1 spent on the service. These results suggest that the Wellbeing for Life service offered good value for money. Further research is needed to systematically and comprehensively determine the societal value of similar holistic, asset-based and lay-led approaches.

The Pain Divide: a cross-sectional analysis of chronic pain prevalence, pain intensity and opioid utilisation in England.

OBJECTIVES: Our central research question was, in England, are geographical inequalities in opioid use driven by health need (pain)? To answer this question, our study examined: (1) if there are regional inequalities in rates of chronic pain prevalence, pain intensity and opioid utilisation in England; (2) if opioid use and chronic pain are associated after adjusting for individual-level and area-level confounders. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study design using data from the Health Survey for England 2011. SETTING: England. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Chronic pain prevalence, pain intensity and opioid utilisation. PARTICIPANTS: Participant data relating to chronic pain prevalence, pain intensity and opioid usage data were obtained at local authority level from the Health Survey for England 2011; in total, 5711 respondents were included in our analysis. METHODS: Regional and local authority data were mapped, and a generalised linear model was then used to explore the relationships between the data. The model was adjusted to account for area-level and individual-level variables. RESULTS: There were geographical variations in chronic pain prevalence, pain intensity and opioid utilisation across the English regions-with evidence of a 'pain divide' between the North and the South, whereby people in the North of England more likely to have 'severely limiting' or 'moderately limiting' chronic pain. The intensity of chronic pain was significantly and positively associated with the use of opioid analgesics. CONCLUSIONS: There are geographical differences in chronic pain prevalence, pain intensity and opioid utilisation across England-with evidence of a 'pain divide'. Given the public health concerns associated with the long-term use of opioid analgesics-and their questionable activity in the management of chronic pain-more guidance is needed to support prescribers in the management of chronic pain, so the initiation of opioids can be avoided.

The effects of community pharmacy public health interventions on population health and health inequalities: a systematic review of reviews protocol.

BACKGROUND: Community pharmacies have great potential to deliver services aimed at promoting health and preventing disease, and are embedded within communities. In the light of a rapid increase in community pharmacy-delivered public health services and an accompanying increase in the evidence base, this systematic review of reviews will synthesise systematic reviews of public health community pharmacy interventions and assess their effects on public health and health inequalities. METHODS/DESIGN: Systematic review methodology will be used to identify all systematic reviews that describe the health and health equity effects of community pharmacy public health interventions. Twenty databases will be searched using a pre-determined search strategy to evaluate community pharmacy-delivered public health interventions. Findings from the included reviews will be pooled, and a narrative synthesis executed to identify overarching patterns and results. DISCUSSION: Findings will support future decision-making around how community pharmacy public health services can be used alongside other strategies to promote health, prevent disease and reduce health inequalities. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017056264 .