Table 1.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for systematic review of fee-for-service medication review

Inclusion criteria
Study design	• Randomized controlled trial, quasi-experiment with control group, before and after study design or prospective/retrospective cohort with control group
Participant	• Adult participants defined by the individual study
Setting	• Intervention was conducted in the following setting: pharmacy, patients' home, community health centre, GP clinics
Intervention	• A medication review service: Medication review involved pharmacists providing pharmaceutical care and/or equivalent service to a patient. The current study considered a service as a medication review if the intervention included (a) and at least two of the following activities:
	a) Review patient's medications for medication related issues
	b) Taking and documenting medication history
	c) Educating and counselling patients about medication and/or disease
	d) Providing a medication action plan
	e) Reaching an agreement with the patient about their medication treatment plan
	f) Monitoring drug treatment for effectiveness or adverse event
	g) Optimizing medication effectiveness and minimizing problems related to medication usage.
	• Pharmacists were reimbursed for the intervention. The intervention was considered as ‘fee-for service’ if:
	a) The country was known to provide funding for the particular service (e.g. Home Medication Review in Australia)
	b) The service was a demonstration/pilot service that received funding from interested parties (e.g. non-government agencies or university)
	c) The service received funding from independent parties such as patients, an employer or insurance company
	d) The service received funding through individual contracts with health agencies (e.g. District Health Board)
Comparison	• The intervention must be compared with a control group that received usual care
Outcomes	• Quantitative: (1) Primary outcomes such as mortality, hospitalization and clinical biomarkers or marker of disease progress (2) Secondary outcomes such as medication adherence, economic and quality of life
	For clinical biomarkers or marker of disease progress, data were included if the number of patients who achieved the target goal was defined or if mean and standard deviation (SD) or 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of the biomarker was reported. Only reported biomarkers that were assumed to be normally distributed were included in meta-analysis
Exclusion criteria
Study design	• Review articles, commentaries, editorial letters and studies without a control group
Participants	• Intervention conducted only on paediatric patients or patients unable to give consent (e.g. patients with dementia)
Setting	• Intervention in nursing home or assisted living facilities, academic setting, hospital, out-patient setting and call centre
Interventions	• Intervention that only involved a prescription review (e.g. type 1 medication review)
	• Intervention that was not a medication review (e.g. smoking cessation clinic)
	• Pharmacist was only partly involved in delivering the medication review (combined interventions with other health professionals so that pharmacist's intervention cannot be distinctly quantified)
	• Intervention that was delivered only through phone calls or by pharmacy students
	• Intervention that was not reimbursed (e.g. a study funded through a University) or if:
	a) a fee was only provided for preparing and dispensing patient's medications
Outcomes	• Qualitative outcomes (e.g. perceptions that were not quantified)
	• Process outcomes (e.g. number of medication related problems identified or number of recommendations being accepted by doctors)