Cost-effectiveness of professional pharmacy services in community pharmacy: a systematic review

被引:27
作者
Malet-Larrea, A. [1 ]
Garcia-Cardenas, V. [2 ]
Saez-Benito, L. [3 ]
Benrimoj, S. I. [2 ]
Calvo, B. [1 ]
Goyenechea, E. [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Basque Country, Dept Pharmaceut Technol, Fac Pharm, Vitoria, Spain
[2] Univ Technol Sydney, Grad Sch Hlth, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[3] San Jorge Univ, Dept Pharm, Fac Hlth Sci, Villanueva De Gallego, Spain
[4] Official Pharmacist Assoc Guipuzcoa, Tech Management Dept, Donostia San Sebastian, Spain
关键词
Community pharmacy; cost-effectiveness; health technology assessment; pharmacy services; systematic review; FOLLOW-UP SERVICE; ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS; PHARMACEUTICAL CARE; HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS; IMPROVE ADHERENCE; POLYPHARMACY; MANAGEMENT; PROVISION; PROGRAM; DISEASE;
D O I
10.1080/14737167.2016.1259071
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Introduction: The aim was to determine whether professional pharmacy services (PPS) provided to ambulatory patients attending community pharmacy are cost-effective compared with usual care (UC).Areas covered: MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases were searched, and the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials, and the methodological quality of economic evaluations was assessed. A total of 17 economic evaluations of 13 studies were included. Seven studies were classified as high-, three as medium- and three as low-quality. PPS were more effective and less costly than UC in four studies; seven studies concluded that PPS were more effective and more costly and two studies concluded that the service was as effective as the UC, with higher and lower costs.Expert commentary: Although the uncertainty was variable among the studies, a general trend towards the cost-effectiveness of PPS was observed. Decision makers are encouraged to consider the feasibility of implementing PPS.
引用
收藏
页码:747 / 758
页数:12
相关论文
共 48 条
  • [1] Aitken M.S., 2013, Avoidable costs in US Healthcare
  • [2] SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OF ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS: UTILITY OR FUTILITY?
    Anderson, Rob
    [J]. HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2010, 19 (03) : 350 - 364
  • [3] [Anonymous], GUID METH TECHN APPR
  • [4] [Anonymous], NHS EC EV DATB HDB
  • [5] [Anonymous], J PHARM BELG
  • [6] [Anonymous], FILT FIND EC EV
  • [7] [Anonymous], REIMBURSEMENT SYSTEM
  • [8] [Anonymous], PHARM DIAB CAR PROGR
  • [9] [Anonymous], COCHRANE HDB SYSTEMA
  • [10] [Anonymous], Suggested risk of bias criteria for EPOC reviews