Table 2.
Summary of study characteristics
| Ref | Study design | Setting | Study duration (months) | Total number of participants (N = intervention group where relevant) | Type of intervention/ person leading | Usual care (if applicable) | Adherence outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Basheti 2016 Jordan |
RCT | Outpatient Clinic | 3 | 112 (N = 50) |
Follow up Pharmacist led medication review | Routine clinical practice | Reduction in self- reported non-adherence in intervention group (P < 0.001) compared with control group (P = 0.168) |
| Beer 2011 Australia |
RCT | Home setting and residential aged-care facility | Unknown | 30 (N = 15) |
Physician led targeted medication withdrawal | Usual care | No significant difference between the groups P = 0.17 |
| Campins 2017 Spain |
RCT | Primary care centres | 12 | 503 (N = 252) |
Pharmacist led medication review | Routine clinical practice | At 6 months adherence was higher in the intervention group (76.4% v 64.1%) P = 0.005 |
| Grymonpre 2001 Canada |
RCT | Community based clinic | Variable (from baseline to follow up letter) |
135 (N = 69) |
Pharmacist led medication review | Routine clinical practice | No significant impact on adherence from baseline to follow-up (P = 0.895) |
| Haag 2016 USA |
RCT | Primary care outpatient clinic | 1 | 25 (N = 13) |
Pharmacist led medication review | Pre-existing out-patient care transition programme | No significant difference in adherence P = 0.65 |
| Hanlon 1996 USA |
RCT | General Medicine Clinic at Veterans Affairs Medical Centre | 12 | 208 (N = 105) |
Pharmacist led medication review | Usual care | No significant difference in medication compliance (P = 0.88) |
| Hedegaard 2015 Denmark |
RCT | Outpatient clinics | 12 | 532 (N = 240) |
Pharmacist led medication review | Routine clinical practice | Trend toward improved adherence at 3, 9 and 12 months. Greater % of control group non-adherent compared with intervention group 30.2% vs 20.3% P = 0.01. |
| Jaeger 2017 Germany |
RCT | GP Practices | 9 | 273 (N = 143) |
Tailored medication review programme delivered by GPs and Health Care Assistants | Routine clinical practice | No significant effects on adherence P = 0.11 |
| Lowe 2000 UK |
RCT | General Practice / Home setting | 3 | 161 (N = 77) |
Pharmacist led review | Routine clinical practice | Significant difference in mean compliance score (tablet count and self –reported). Intervention group = 91.3% vs 79.5% control group. P < 0.001 |
| Sturgess 2003 Northern Ireland |
RCT | Community Pharmacies | 18 | 191 (N = 110) |
Community Pharmacist intervention programme | Routine Practice | Significant increase in compliance and fewer problems with medication compared with control group (P < 0.05) |
| Vinks 2009 Netherlands |
RCT | Community Pharmacy | 4 | 174 (N = 87) |
Community Pharmacist review | Usual Practice | Significant reduction in the number of drug related problems per patient (includes non-compliance) -16.3% (−24.3,-8.3) 95% CI |
| Messerli 2016 Switzerland |
RCT | Community Pharmacy | 7 | 450 (N = 218) |
Community Pharmacist Polymedication Check (PMC) |
Routine practice | No significant difference in adherence between the two groups could be observed (p = 0.817) |
| Chen 2016 Taiwan |
Prospective cross-sectional | Outpatient clinics | 3 | 152 | Pharmacist led medication therapy management service | Increase in medication adherence (MMAS-4 scale) from 3.02 to 3.92 (p < 0.001) | |
| Fiss 2013 Germany |
Prospective cohort | Ambulatory primary healthcare | 1–24 (mean = 9) |
911 (N = 393) |
Pharmaceutical care from local pharmacy plus medical intervention by GP | Increased in adherence forgetfulness P = 0.001 Increased adherence deliberate p = 0.003 (n = 400) between baseline and follow up |
|
| Griffiths 2004 Australia |
Cohort | Community / Home setting | 1 | N = 24 | Community nurse medication review | Routine clinical practice | No significant difference in non-adherence pre and post intervention (P = 0.237) |
| Hatah 2014 New Zealand |
Retrospective cohort | Community Pharmacy | 6 to 41 | N = 353 | Community Pharmacist Medicines Use Review (MUR) | No significant difference except during the third visit where more patients with lower adherence scores did not return P < 0.001 | |
| Lee 2015 Hong Kong |
Prospective Uncontrolled | Community outreach | 8 | N = 103 | Pharmacist led review | Routine clinical practice | Significant reduction in Morisky Medication Adherence score P = 0.005 |
| Raynor 2000 UK |
Cohort | Community Pharmacy/home setting | 2 | N = 143 | Community Pharmacist led medication adherence support | Routine practice | Non-adherence fell from 38% to 14% (P < 0.001) |
| Roth 2013 USA |
Prospective | Community based primary care medical practice | 6 | 64 | Clinical Pharmacist led medication review | Routine clinical practice | Significant reduction in the number of medication related problems per patient (P < 0.001) which included non- adherence |
| Steele 2016 USA |
Prospective Study | Home based | 3 | 25 | Pharmacist conducted home based medication review | Routine practice | Non- adherence was significantly reduced (P = 0.012) |
| Tan 2014 Australia |
Prospective Study | Community clinic/ home setting | 6 | 82 | Pharmacist led review | Routine practice | Significant improvement in adherence (44.1% v 62.7% P = 0.023) |
| Twigg 2015 UK |
Service Evaluation | Community Pharmacy | 6 | 620 | Community Pharmacist Review | Routine Practice | Significant increase in adherence 0.513 .337 to 0.689) 95% CI |