药师干预对服药依从性的影响以覆盖天数的比例衡量:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 3.2 4区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Lei Wang, Yuyanzi Zhang, Qiran Wei, Xiao Liang, Jiting Zhou, Aixia Ma, Luying Wang
{"title":"药师干预对服药依从性的影响以覆盖天数的比例衡量:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Lei Wang, Yuyanzi Zhang, Qiran Wei, Xiao Liang, Jiting Zhou, Aixia Ma, Luying Wang","doi":"10.1007/s11096-025-01974-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Pharmacist-led interventions improve medication outcomes, but existing evidence on adherence remains limited by heterogeneous tools and qualitative outcomes. The proportion of days covered (PDC) offers a quantifiable measure of adherence, with recommended threshold (PDC ≥ 80%) supporting evidence-based optimization of pharmacy services in chronic care management. However, studies using PDC to evaluate pharmacist interventions versus usual care show heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the effect of pharmacist-led interventions versus usual care using standardized PDC-based outcomes, and synthesize quantifiable evidence for pharmacy practice.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Five databases were searched from inception to March 2024. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomized studies evaluating pharmacist-led interventions versus usual care with adherence measured by PDC. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. RCTs were assessed using Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 and non-randomized studies with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models (I<sup>2</sup> ≥ 40%) to pool mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes (mean PDC) and risk ratios (RR) for binary outcomes (PDC ≥ 80%). Subgroup analyses explored variability by region, sample size, baseline adherence, publication year, PDC calculation method, intervention duration, and delivery modality. Sensitivity analyses were conducted restricting to RCTs or excluding low-quality studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-nine studies were included in the analysis. Quality appraisal identified 54.5% of non-randomized studies as high quality, and the majority of RCTs were rated as low risk or some concerns. Pharmacist-led interventions significantly enhanced adherence versus usual care, with a pooled MD of 0.08 (95% CI 0.04-0.12) for mean PDC and an RR of 1.09 (95% CI 1.06-1.13) for adherence rate. Greater effects were observed for lipid-lowering (MD = 0.08, 0.04-0.11) and hypotensive medications (MD = 0.06, 0.03-0.10) than for antidiabetics (MD = 0.02, 0.01-0.03), for 6-month (MD = 0.12, 0.07-0.17) versus 12-month interventions (MD = 0.03, 0.01-0.06), and for telephone-based delivery (RR = 1.16, 1.06-1.28) versus multifaceted counterparts (RR = 1.12, 1.01-1.25). High heterogeneity was observed across pooled analyses. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pharmacist-led interventions enhance medication adherence in mean PDC and adherence rate. These consistent effects across different durations and delivery methods show their adaptability and scalability in clinical settings, highlighting their value in real-world pharmacy practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":13828,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effect of pharmacist intervention on medication adherence measured with proportion of days covered: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Lei Wang, Yuyanzi Zhang, Qiran Wei, Xiao Liang, Jiting Zhou, Aixia Ma, Luying Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11096-025-01974-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Pharmacist-led interventions improve medication outcomes, but existing evidence on adherence remains limited by heterogeneous tools and qualitative outcomes. The proportion of days covered (PDC) offers a quantifiable measure of adherence, with recommended threshold (PDC ≥ 80%) supporting evidence-based optimization of pharmacy services in chronic care management. However, studies using PDC to evaluate pharmacist interventions versus usual care show heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the effect of pharmacist-led interventions versus usual care using standardized PDC-based outcomes, and synthesize quantifiable evidence for pharmacy practice.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Five databases were searched from inception to March 2024. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomized studies evaluating pharmacist-led interventions versus usual care with adherence measured by PDC. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. RCTs were assessed using Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 and non-randomized studies with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models (I<sup>2</sup> ≥ 40%) to pool mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes (mean PDC) and risk ratios (RR) for binary outcomes (PDC ≥ 80%). Subgroup analyses explored variability by region, sample size, baseline adherence, publication year, PDC calculation method, intervention duration, and delivery modality. Sensitivity analyses were conducted restricting to RCTs or excluding low-quality studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-nine studies were included in the analysis. Quality appraisal identified 54.5% of non-randomized studies as high quality, and the majority of RCTs were rated as low risk or some concerns. Pharmacist-led interventions significantly enhanced adherence versus usual care, with a pooled MD of 0.08 (95% CI 0.04-0.12) for mean PDC and an RR of 1.09 (95% CI 1.06-1.13) for adherence rate. Greater effects were observed for lipid-lowering (MD = 0.08, 0.04-0.11) and hypotensive medications (MD = 0.06, 0.03-0.10) than for antidiabetics (MD = 0.02, 0.01-0.03), for 6-month (MD = 0.12, 0.07-0.17) versus 12-month interventions (MD = 0.03, 0.01-0.06), and for telephone-based delivery (RR = 1.16, 1.06-1.28) versus multifaceted counterparts (RR = 1.12, 1.01-1.25). High heterogeneity was observed across pooled analyses. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of results.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pharmacist-led interventions enhance medication adherence in mean PDC and adherence rate. These consistent effects across different durations and delivery methods show their adaptability and scalability in clinical settings, highlighting their value in real-world pharmacy practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13828,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-025-01974-4\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-025-01974-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:药剂师主导的干预措施改善了用药结果,但现有的依从性证据仍然受到异质性工具和定性结果的限制。覆盖天数比例(PDC)提供了一种可量化的依从性指标,推荐阈值(PDC≥80%)支持慢性病护理管理中药房服务的循证优化。然而,使用PDC评估药剂师干预与常规护理的研究显示出异质性。目的:本研究旨在系统回顾和荟萃分析药剂师主导的干预措施与常规护理的效果,使用标准化的基于pdc的结果,并为药学实践合成可量化的证据。方法:检索自成立至2024年3月的5个数据库。符合条件的研究包括随机对照试验(rct)或非随机研究,评估药剂师主导的干预措施与常规护理的依从性,并通过PDC测量。两位审稿人独立筛选研究并提取数据。随机对照试验采用Cochrane偏倚风险2.0评估,非随机研究采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评估。采用随机效应模型(I2≥40%)进行meta分析,汇总连续结局(平均PDC)的平均差异(MD)和二元结局(PDC≥80%)的风险比(RR)。亚组分析探讨了不同地区、样本量、基线依从性、出版年份、PDC计算方法、干预持续时间和递送方式的变异性。进行敏感性分析,限制随机对照试验或排除低质量研究。结果:29项研究被纳入分析。质量评价确定54.5%的非随机研究为高质量,大多数随机对照试验被评为低风险或存在一些问题。与常规护理相比,药剂师主导的干预措施显著提高了依从性,平均PDC的总危险度(MD)为0.08 (95% CI 0.04-0.12),依从率的RR为1.09 (95% CI 1.06-1.13)。降脂(MD = 0.08, 0.04-0.11)和降压药物(MD = 0.06, 0.03-0.10)的效果大于降糖药(MD = 0.02, 0.01-0.03), 6个月(MD = 0.12, 0.07-0.17)优于12个月干预(MD = 0.03, 0.01-0.06),电话传递(RR = 1.16, 1.06-1.28)优于多方面干预(RR = 1.12, 1.01-1.25)。在合并分析中观察到高度异质性。敏感性分析证实了结果的稳健性。结论:药师主导的干预措施提高了平均PDC的依从性和依从率。这些跨越不同持续时间和递送方法的一致效果显示了它们在临床环境中的适应性和可扩展性,突出了它们在现实世界药学实践中的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The effect of pharmacist intervention on medication adherence measured with proportion of days covered: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Pharmacist-led interventions improve medication outcomes, but existing evidence on adherence remains limited by heterogeneous tools and qualitative outcomes. The proportion of days covered (PDC) offers a quantifiable measure of adherence, with recommended threshold (PDC ≥ 80%) supporting evidence-based optimization of pharmacy services in chronic care management. However, studies using PDC to evaluate pharmacist interventions versus usual care show heterogeneity.

Aim: This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the effect of pharmacist-led interventions versus usual care using standardized PDC-based outcomes, and synthesize quantifiable evidence for pharmacy practice.

Method: Five databases were searched from inception to March 2024. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomized studies evaluating pharmacist-led interventions versus usual care with adherence measured by PDC. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. RCTs were assessed using Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 and non-randomized studies with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models (I2 ≥ 40%) to pool mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes (mean PDC) and risk ratios (RR) for binary outcomes (PDC ≥ 80%). Subgroup analyses explored variability by region, sample size, baseline adherence, publication year, PDC calculation method, intervention duration, and delivery modality. Sensitivity analyses were conducted restricting to RCTs or excluding low-quality studies.

Results: Twenty-nine studies were included in the analysis. Quality appraisal identified 54.5% of non-randomized studies as high quality, and the majority of RCTs were rated as low risk or some concerns. Pharmacist-led interventions significantly enhanced adherence versus usual care, with a pooled MD of 0.08 (95% CI 0.04-0.12) for mean PDC and an RR of 1.09 (95% CI 1.06-1.13) for adherence rate. Greater effects were observed for lipid-lowering (MD = 0.08, 0.04-0.11) and hypotensive medications (MD = 0.06, 0.03-0.10) than for antidiabetics (MD = 0.02, 0.01-0.03), for 6-month (MD = 0.12, 0.07-0.17) versus 12-month interventions (MD = 0.03, 0.01-0.06), and for telephone-based delivery (RR = 1.16, 1.06-1.28) versus multifaceted counterparts (RR = 1.12, 1.01-1.25). High heterogeneity was observed across pooled analyses. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of results.

Conclusion: Pharmacist-led interventions enhance medication adherence in mean PDC and adherence rate. These consistent effects across different durations and delivery methods show their adaptability and scalability in clinical settings, highlighting their value in real-world pharmacy practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.30%
发文量
131
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy (IJCP) offers a platform for articles on research in Clinical Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Care and related practice-oriented subjects in the pharmaceutical sciences. IJCP is a bi-monthly, international, peer-reviewed journal that publishes original research data, new ideas and discussions on pharmacotherapy and outcome research, clinical pharmacy, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacoeconomics, the clinical use of medicines, medical devices and laboratory tests, information on medicines and medical devices information, pharmacy services research, medication management, other clinical aspects of pharmacy. IJCP publishes original Research articles, Review articles , Short research reports, Commentaries, book reviews, and Letters to the Editor. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy is affiliated with the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy (ESCP). ESCP promotes practice and research in Clinical Pharmacy, especially in Europe. The general aim of the society is to advance education, practice and research in Clinical Pharmacy . Until 2010 the journal was called Pharmacy World & Science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信