↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Humanistic outcomes and patient acceptance of the pharmacist-led medication review “Polymedication Check” in primary care in Switzerland: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Humanistic outcomes and patient acceptance of the pharmacist-led medication review “Polymedication Check” in primary care in Switzerland: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, June 2018
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s160789
Pubmed ID
Authors

Markus Messerli, Noortje Vriends, Kurt E Hersberger

Abstract

Since 2010, Swiss pharmacists have been offering their patients a Polymedication Check (PMC), a new cognitive pharmacy service in the form of a medication review for patients taking ≥4 prescribed medicines for a period >3 months. While a first publication of this project reported on the impact of the PMC on patients' adherence, the present paper focuses on humanistic outcomes. This randomized controlled trial was conducted in 54 Swiss community pharmacies. After recruitment, the intervention group underwent a PMC in the pharmacy (T-0) and 28 weeks after T-0 (T-28), while the control group did not receive the PMC until 28 weeks after the study started (T-28). A clinical psychologist, blinded to the intervention, interviewed the patients 2 weeks (T-2) and 16 weeks (T-16) after T-0. Interviewer and patient both rated patient's knowledge of own medicines use. Furthermore, patients reported satisfaction with their pharmacy and appraisal of their medicines use. The availability of a written medication plan was assessed at T-16. Acceptance of the service was measured using a patient's self-report questionnaire at T-28. General linear model analysis for knowledge about medicines revealed a significant effect on the factor "group" (P=5.86, p=0.016), indicating that the intervention group had higher ratings for knowledge about their medication at T-2 and T-16 compared to controls. The majority (83%) of patients judged the counseling by the pharmacist as being helpful for their daily medication management. Availability of a written medication plan was comparable in both groups (52.5% vs 52.7%, p>0.05). For the first time, the benefits of a complex pharmacist-led intervention were evaluated in Swiss primary care with a randomized controlled trial. The PMC increased patients' subjective knowledge of their medicines compared to no medication review. The effect remained sustainable over time. Recommendations resulting from the pharmacist-led service were highly appreciated by the patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 19%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Other 3 6%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 15 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 11%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 20 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 June 2018.
All research outputs
#16,053,755
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#915
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,992
of 342,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#27
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,877 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.