Weinberger 2002.
| Methods | Randomised trial by practice: 36 drugstores divided into 12 clusters of 3 geographically‐proximal drugstores | |
| Participants | 1113 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma
Asthma ‐ 660 (pharmaceutical care programme 262, peak flow monitoring control 233, usual care control 165)
COPD ‐ 453 (pharmaceutical care programme 185, peak flow monitoring control 130, usual care control 138)
Health professional (delivering intervention): Unclear
Practice: 36 Community pharmacies Indianapolis, USA Year of study:July 1998 to not stated. |
|
| Interventions | Pharmaceutical care: patients received peak flow monitor + instructions for use, written educational materials, and monthly telephone calls from research personnel to collect Peak Expiratory Flow Rate (PEFR) results; pharmacist assessed PEFR results and other relevant medical information (medications, refill history, Emergency Department visits and hospitalisations) and implemented pharmaceutical care activities) vs Peak flow monitoring: patients received peak flow monitors and instructions for use and monthly telephone calls from research personnel to collect peak flow PEFR results (results were not seen by the pharmacist) vs Usual care: patients did not receive peak flow monitors but received monthly follow‐up phone calls from research personnel. Number of interventions: mean 19.4 in asthma, 22.4 in COPD patients over 12 months |
|
| Outcomes | PEFR (combined for asthma and COPD patients) at 12 months Health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) for asthma patients at 12 months HRQOL for COPD patients at 12 months | |
| Notes | Funding source: Department of Veterans Affairs Conflict of interest: Newell and Collins were employed by CVS throughout the project |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "a random number chart" |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Not stated but unlikely due to nature of intervention |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All Outcomes/Outcome 1 | Low risk | Both baseline and follow‐up interviewers blind |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All Outcomes/Outcome 1 | Low risk | Both baseline and follow‐up interviewers blind for PEFR |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | Between group attrition < 10%, however, high attrition overall |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All reported |
| Other bias | Low risk | None |