Systematic Review of Interventions to Improve Prescribing

Author:

Ostini Remo1,Hegney Desley2,Jackson Claire3,Williamson Margaret4,Mackson Judith M5,Gurman Karin5,Hall Wayne6,Tett Susan E7

Affiliation:

1. School of Pharmacy, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

2. UQ/Blue Care Research & Practice Development Centre, School of Nursing & Midwifery, The University of Queensland

3. School of Medicine, The University of Queensland

4. Research and Development, National Prescribing Service Ltd., Surry Hills, Australia

5. Education and Quality Assurance Program, National Prescribing Service Ltd.

6. School of Population Health, The University of Queensland

7. Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Queensland

Abstract

Objective: To update 2 comprehensive reviews of systematic reviews on prescribing interventions and identify the latest evidence about the effectiveness of the interventions. Data Sources: Systematic searches for English-language reports of experimental and quasi-experimental research were conducted in PubMed(1951–May 2007). EMBASE (1974–March 2008), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970–March 2008), and 11 other bibliographic databases of medical, social science, and business research. Following an initial title screening process and after selecting 6 specific intervention categories (identified from the previous reviews) in community settings, 2 reviewers independently assessed abstracts and then full studies for relevance and quality and extracted relevant data using formal assessment and data extraction tools. Results were then methodically incorporated into the findings of the 2 earlier reviews of systematic reviews. Data Selection And Synthesis: Twenty-nine of 26,314 articles reviewed were assessed to be of relevant, high-quality research. Audit and feedback, together with educational outreach visits, were the focus of the majority of recent, high-quality research into prescribing interventions. These interventions were also the most effective in improving prescribing practice. A smaller number of studies included a patient-mediated intervention; this intervention was not consistently effective. There is insufficient recent research into manual reminders to confidently update earlier reviews and there remains insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of local consensus processes or multidisciplinary teams. Conclusions: Educational outreach as well as audit and feedback continue to dominate research into prescribing interventions. These 2 prescribing interventions also most consistently show positive results. Much less research is conducted into other types of interventions and there is still very little effort to systematically test why interventions do or do not work.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Pharmacology (medical)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3