{"title":"药剂师主导和药师干预血压控制的Meta分析","authors":"M. Memişoğlu, Y. Çelik","doi":"10.4081/itjm.2021.1463","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Effective intervention is a significant component in the improvement of blood pressure control and patient adherence. Blood pressure control includes different self-monitoring techniques, mobile health monitoring, or healthcare professionals’ interventions. This study aims to compare, analyze, and interpret the effectiveness of pharmacist-physician collaboration and pharmacist- led interventions. Meta-analysis was performed using MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases between 2008-2018. Of the 51 relevant systematic reviews identified, 15 were of sufficient quality and included in the data synthesis. The breakdown of the 15 included 7 (n=2026) pharmacist and 8 pharmacist-physician interventions (n=2361). The impact of pharmacist-physician collaboration and pharmacist-led interventions on Systolic Blood Pressure was –8.22 (–11.01; –5.42) (P<0.01) and –7.68 (–9.30; –6.06) (P=0.35), respectively. On the other hand, similar correlation for Diastolic Blood Pressure for the impact of pharmacist-physician collaboration and pharmacist-led interventions was –3.55 (–4.54; –2.55) (P=0.49) and –2.58 (–3.76; –1.39) (P=0.24), respectively. These results suggest that both interventions are effective for blood pressure control. However, when two meta-analyses were compared, it was found that pharmacist-physician collaboration was more effective than pharmacist-led interventions. This finding highlights the importance of multidisciplinary approaches during blood pressure control procedures. When a holistic view is considered; especially cost-effectiveness, future studies must be diversified to encompass a broader context and impact analysis.","PeriodicalId":43715,"journal":{"name":"Italian Journal of Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meta-analysis of pharmacist-led and pharmacist-physician intervention on blood pressure control\",\"authors\":\"M. Memişoğlu, Y. Çelik\",\"doi\":\"10.4081/itjm.2021.1463\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Effective intervention is a significant component in the improvement of blood pressure control and patient adherence. Blood pressure control includes different self-monitoring techniques, mobile health monitoring, or healthcare professionals’ interventions. This study aims to compare, analyze, and interpret the effectiveness of pharmacist-physician collaboration and pharmacist- led interventions. Meta-analysis was performed using MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases between 2008-2018. Of the 51 relevant systematic reviews identified, 15 were of sufficient quality and included in the data synthesis. The breakdown of the 15 included 7 (n=2026) pharmacist and 8 pharmacist-physician interventions (n=2361). The impact of pharmacist-physician collaboration and pharmacist-led interventions on Systolic Blood Pressure was –8.22 (–11.01; –5.42) (P<0.01) and –7.68 (–9.30; –6.06) (P=0.35), respectively. On the other hand, similar correlation for Diastolic Blood Pressure for the impact of pharmacist-physician collaboration and pharmacist-led interventions was –3.55 (–4.54; –2.55) (P=0.49) and –2.58 (–3.76; –1.39) (P=0.24), respectively. These results suggest that both interventions are effective for blood pressure control. However, when two meta-analyses were compared, it was found that pharmacist-physician collaboration was more effective than pharmacist-led interventions. This finding highlights the importance of multidisciplinary approaches during blood pressure control procedures. When a holistic view is considered; especially cost-effectiveness, future studies must be diversified to encompass a broader context and impact analysis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43715,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Italian Journal of Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Italian Journal of Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4081/itjm.2021.1463\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Italian Journal of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4081/itjm.2021.1463","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
有效的干预是改善血压控制和患者依从性的重要组成部分。血压控制包括不同的自我监测技术、移动健康监测或医疗保健专业人员的干预措施。本研究旨在比较、分析和解释药剂师-医生合作和药剂师主导的干预措施的有效性。2008-2018年间,通过PubMed、EMBASE、EBSCO、Web of Science、Scopus和Cochrane Library数据库使用MEDLINE进行荟萃分析。在确定的51项相关系统审查中,有15项质量足够,已纳入数据综合。15项干预措施的细分包括7项(n=2026)药剂师和8项药剂师-医生干预措施(n=2361)。药剂师-医生合作和药剂师主导的干预措施对收缩压的影响分别为-8.22(-11.01;-5.42)(P<0.01)和-7.68(-9.30;-6.06)(P=0.35)。另一方面,舒张压与药剂师-医生合作和药剂师主导的干预措施影响的相似相关性分别为-3.55(-4.54;-2.55)(P=0.49)和-2.58(-3.76;-1.39)(P=0.24)。这些结果表明,这两种干预措施对控制血压都是有效的。然而,当比较两项荟萃分析时,发现药剂师与医生的合作比药剂师主导的干预更有效。这一发现突出了多学科方法在血压控制过程中的重要性。当考虑整体观点时;特别是成本效益,未来的研究必须多样化,以涵盖更广泛的背景和影响分析。
Meta-analysis of pharmacist-led and pharmacist-physician intervention on blood pressure control
Effective intervention is a significant component in the improvement of blood pressure control and patient adherence. Blood pressure control includes different self-monitoring techniques, mobile health monitoring, or healthcare professionals’ interventions. This study aims to compare, analyze, and interpret the effectiveness of pharmacist-physician collaboration and pharmacist- led interventions. Meta-analysis was performed using MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases between 2008-2018. Of the 51 relevant systematic reviews identified, 15 were of sufficient quality and included in the data synthesis. The breakdown of the 15 included 7 (n=2026) pharmacist and 8 pharmacist-physician interventions (n=2361). The impact of pharmacist-physician collaboration and pharmacist-led interventions on Systolic Blood Pressure was –8.22 (–11.01; –5.42) (P<0.01) and –7.68 (–9.30; –6.06) (P=0.35), respectively. On the other hand, similar correlation for Diastolic Blood Pressure for the impact of pharmacist-physician collaboration and pharmacist-led interventions was –3.55 (–4.54; –2.55) (P=0.49) and –2.58 (–3.76; –1.39) (P=0.24), respectively. These results suggest that both interventions are effective for blood pressure control. However, when two meta-analyses were compared, it was found that pharmacist-physician collaboration was more effective than pharmacist-led interventions. This finding highlights the importance of multidisciplinary approaches during blood pressure control procedures. When a holistic view is considered; especially cost-effectiveness, future studies must be diversified to encompass a broader context and impact analysis.