Exploring risk assessment tools for medicine-related problems among culturally and linguistically diverse patients in Australia: a systematic review.

IF 2.7 3区医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY

European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-28 DOI:10.1007/s00228-025-03845-3

Rawan Sawalha, Sarah Al-Samawy, Zeyad Mahmoud, Chloe Tadorian, Christopher Levi, Neil Spratt, Hassan Hosseinzadeh, Beata Bajorek

{"title":"Exploring risk assessment tools for medicine-related problems among culturally and linguistically diverse patients in Australia: a systematic review.","authors":"Rawan Sawalha, Sarah Al-Samawy, Zeyad Mahmoud, Chloe Tadorian, Christopher Levi, Neil Spratt, Hassan Hosseinzadeh, Beata Bajorek","doi":"10.1007/s00228-025-03845-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This review evaluated publications that described medicine risk assessment tools developed or adapted for use in Australia to assess risks associated with medicine-related problems (MRPs). It examined whether these tools considered cultural background as a crucial risk factor for MRPs and whether clinical guidelines provided tailored recommendations for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) patients.Methods: A systematic search was conducted in Web of Science, Scopus, CINHAL, EMBASE, PubMed/Medline and Google Scholar (January 1985-November 2024). The review included publications on the development or validation of medicine risk assessment tools for MRPs in Australia, as well as clinical guidelines relevant to managing diseases classified as National Health Priority Areas (NHPAs).Results: Sixteen publications on thirteen medication risk assessment tools and thirteen publications on twelve clinical therapeutic guidelines were included. Risk factors varied widely and were categorised into four groups: patient-related (e.g. age, cognitive status), disease-related (e.g. comorbidities), medicine-related (e.g. polypharmacy), and health services-related (e.g. re-hospitalisations). Only one tool considered CALD background as a risk factor for MRPs. Although some tools acknowledged non-adherence or communication issues, they did not systematically address underlying cultural or linguistic factors. Clinical guidelines primarily focused on self-management and providing information in CALD patients' first language, with some encouraging interpreter use.Conclusion: Medicine risk assessment tools lack consistent frameworks, and CALD backgrounds are largely overlooked as a key demonstrated risk factor for MRPs. Future research should develop inclusive tools and clinical guidelines incorporating cultural and linguistic factors. Policymakers and healthcare practitioners should refine these tools to improve medication safety and achieve equitable healthcare outcomes for CALD populations.","PeriodicalId":11857,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology","volume":" ","pages":"913-938"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-025-03845-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This review evaluated publications that described medicine risk assessment tools developed or adapted for use in Australia to assess risks associated with medicine-related problems (MRPs). It examined whether these tools considered cultural background as a crucial risk factor for MRPs and whether clinical guidelines provided tailored recommendations for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) patients.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted in Web of Science, Scopus, CINHAL, EMBASE, PubMed/Medline and Google Scholar (January 1985-November 2024). The review included publications on the development or validation of medicine risk assessment tools for MRPs in Australia, as well as clinical guidelines relevant to managing diseases classified as National Health Priority Areas (NHPAs).

Results: Sixteen publications on thirteen medication risk assessment tools and thirteen publications on twelve clinical therapeutic guidelines were included. Risk factors varied widely and were categorised into four groups: patient-related (e.g. age, cognitive status), disease-related (e.g. comorbidities), medicine-related (e.g. polypharmacy), and health services-related (e.g. re-hospitalisations). Only one tool considered CALD background as a risk factor for MRPs. Although some tools acknowledged non-adherence or communication issues, they did not systematically address underlying cultural or linguistic factors. Clinical guidelines primarily focused on self-management and providing information in CALD patients' first language, with some encouraging interpreter use.

Conclusion: Medicine risk assessment tools lack consistent frameworks, and CALD backgrounds are largely overlooked as a key demonstrated risk factor for MRPs. Future research should develop inclusive tools and clinical guidelines incorporating cultural and linguistic factors. Policymakers and healthcare practitioners should refine these tools to improve medication safety and achieve equitable healthcare outcomes for CALD populations.

查看原文本刊更多论文

探索风险评估工具的医学相关问题在不同文化和语言的患者在澳大利亚：一个系统的回顾。

目的：本综述评价了描述在澳大利亚开发或改编用于评估与药物相关问题（MRPs）相关风险的药物风险评估工具的出版物。它检查了这些工具是否将文化背景视为mrp的关键风险因素，以及临床指南是否为文化和语言多样性（CALD）患者提供了量身定制的建议。方法：系统检索Web of Science、Scopus、CINHAL、EMBASE、PubMed/Medline和谷歌Scholar数据库（1985年1月- 2024年11月）。审查包括关于澳大利亚mrp药物风险评估工具的开发或验证的出版物，以及与管理被列为国家卫生优先领域的疾病有关的临床指南。结果：共纳入13种用药风险评估工具16篇，12种临床治疗指南13篇。风险因素差别很大，可分为四组：与患者有关（如年龄、认知状况）、与疾病有关（如合并症）、与药物有关（如多种药物）和与保健服务有关（如再次住院）。只有一个工具认为CALD背景是mrp的危险因素。虽然一些工具承认不遵守或沟通问题，但它们没有系统地处理潜在的文化或语言因素。临床指南主要侧重于自我管理，并以CALD患者的第一语言提供信息，并鼓励使用口译员。结论：医学风险评估工具缺乏一致的框架，CALD背景在很大程度上被忽视了作为mrp的关键风险因素。未来的研究应开发包容性的工具和临床指南，纳入文化和语言因素。政策制定者和医疗保健从业人员应该改进这些工具，以提高药物安全性，并为CALD人群实现公平的医疗保健结果。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 医学-药学

CiteScore

5.40

自引率

3.40%

发文量

170

审稿时长

3-8 weeks

期刊介绍： The European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology publishes original papers on all aspects of clinical pharmacology and drug therapy in humans. Manuscripts are welcomed on the following topics: therapeutic trials, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, pharmacogenetics, drug metabolism, adverse drug reactions, drug interactions, all aspects of drug development, development relating to teaching in clinical pharmacology, pharmacoepidemiology, and matters relating to the rational prescribing and safe use of drugs. Methodological contributions relevant to these topics are also welcomed. Data from animal experiments are accepted only in the context of original data in man reported in the same paper. EJCP will only consider manuscripts describing the frequency of allelic variants in different populations if this information is linked to functional data or new interesting variants. Highly relevant differences in frequency with a major impact in drug therapy for the respective population may be submitted as a letter to the editor. Straightforward phase I pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic studies as parts of new drug development will only be considered for publication if the paper involves -a compound that is interesting and new in some basic or fundamental way, or -methods that are original in some basic sense, or -a highly unexpected outcome, or -conclusions that are scientifically novel in some basic or fundamental sense.