Involving community pharmacists in interprofessional collaboration in primary care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization supports interprofessional collaboration in primary care. On over the past 20 years, community pharmacists had been taking a growing number of new responsibilities and they are recognized as a core member of collaborative care teams as patient-centered care providers. This systematic review aimed to describe interprofessional collaboration in primary care involving a pharmacist, and its effect on patient related outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials cited in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo and CINAHL in English and French was conducted from inception to November 2022. Studies were included if they described an intervention piloted by a primary care provider and included a pharmacist and if they evaluated the effects of intervention on a disease or on patient related outcomes. The search generated 3494 articles. After duplicates were removed and titles and abstracts screened for inclusion, 344 articles remained. RESULTS: Overall, 19 studies were included in the review and assessed for quality. We found 14 studies describing an exclusive collaboration between physician and pharmacist with for all studies a three-step model of pharmacist intervention: a medication review, an interview with the patient, and recommendations made to physician. Major topics in the articles eligible for inclusion included cardiovascular diseases with blood pressure, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and risk of cardiovascular diseases. Positive effects concerned principally blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Collaboration involving pharmacists is mainly described in relation to cardiovascular diseases, for which patient-centered indicators are most often positive. It underscores the need for further controlled studies on pharmacist-involved interprofessional collaboration across various medical conditions to improve consensus on core outcomes measures.

Interprofessional collaboration in primary care: what effect on patient health? A systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: In a period of change in the organization of primary care, Interprofessional Collaboration (IPC) is presented as one of the solutions to health issues. Although the number of inter-professional interventions grounded in primary care increases in all developed countries, evidence on the effects of these collaborations on patient-centred outcomes is patchy. The objective of our study was to assess the effects of IPC grounded in the primary care setting on patient-centred outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review using the PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 01/01/1995 to 01/03/2021, according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting the effects of IPC in primary care on patient health outcomes were included. The quality of the studies was assessed using the revised Downs and Black checklist. RESULTS: Sixty-five articles concerning 61 interventions were analysed. A total of 43 studies were prospective and randomized. Studies were classified into 3 main categories as follows: 1) studies with patients at cardiovascular risk (28 studies)-including diabetes (18 studies) and arterial hypertension (5 studies); 2) studies including elderly and/or polypathological patients (18 studies); and 3) patients with symptoms of mental or physical disorders (15 studies). The number of included patients varied greatly (from 50 to 312,377). The proportion of studies that reported a positive effect of IPC on patient-centred outcomes was as follows: 23 out of the 28 studies including patients at cardiovascular risk, 8 out of the 18 studies of elderly or polypathological patients, and 11 out of the 12 studies of patients with mental or physical disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that IPC is effective in the management of patients at cardiovascular risk. In elderly or polypathological patients and in patients with mental or physical disorders, the number of studies remains very limited, and the results are heterogeneous. Researchers should be encouraged to perform studies based on comparative designs: it would increase evidence on the positive effect and benefits of IPC on patient variables.

Factors influencing French community pharmacists' willingness to participate in research projects: a mixed method study.

BACKGROUND: French community pharmacists are facing an increasing demand to provide a wider range of services to meet the needs of the population. These new missions must be evaluated by primary care research studies. This study aims to explore the factors that influence French community pharmacists' willingness to participate in research projects. METHODS: A mixed-method design was adopted for this study, comprising an initial quantitative online survey followed by semi-directed interviews. The investigation was conducted at two French faculties of pharmacy, Angers and Nantes, involving students in their 6th and final year of pharmacy education, and their community pharmacist tutors. The survey items were based on a study by Saini et al. and participants responded using five-point Likert scales. The semi-directed interviews were conducted after the quantitative analysis, only with volunteer and already graduated community pharmacists. RESULTS: A total of 131 people participated in the quantitative analysis, comprising 75 students and 56 pharmacists. Pharmacists and students agreed on the significance of two key aspects: the research must possess a clear and meaningful purpose, and researchers must keep the pharmacists informed about the study's results. Among the 27 proposed items, only three showed significantly different results between students and pharmacists. Moreover, 11 semi-structured interviews were conducted. Research in the community pharmacy domain is relatively new for many pharmacists. Despite limited training, their willingness to participate is contingent on being actively involved from the outset, receiving appropriate support and training. However, the research should be seamlessly integrated into their daily practice, without being too time-consuming and administratively burdensome. Time constraints emerged as the main obstacle, along with concerns about the availability of human resources. Pharmacists expressed strong motivation driven by the research topic's relevance, and its potential impact on patients or the profession. While financial compensation is desirable, it did not appear to be the main criterion for participation in a study. CONCLUSIONS: French pharmacists are willing to participate in research projects to improve patient care and develop the profession. Research teams must guide and involve from the project's inception.