The use of non-prescription medicines by general practitioner attendees

The landscape of self-care in Australia: A pharmacy perspective

The evolving landscape of self-care in Australia underscores the imperative of recognizing and integrating the crucial role of pharmacists in promoting greater levels of self-care. Although the social and economic justifications for self-care are acknowledged internationally and in the literature, there is very little policy recognition in relation to self-care specifically in Australian health policy. Additionally, the distinct contributions of pharmacies to self-care, i.e., their experiences and accessibility in primary health care, are not consistently highlighted. Community pharmacies in Australia are currently navigating a transformative shift, expanding their scope of practice to deliver highly individualized care, with a special emphasis on the implementation of professional services crucial for the sector's enduring viability. Although pharmacists already play a substantial role in supporting self-care, there exists a compelling demand for a systematic and structured approach. Despite the limited availability of theoretical frameworks or models for pharmacists in self-care support within the existing literature, tangible practical evidence attests to the success of interventions. In an era where patients increasingly assume responsibility for self-managing conditions, the pharmacist's role in facilitating self-care and judicious self-medication is pivotal, promising not only tangible benefits for individuals but also contributing significantly to the long-term sustainability of the healthcare system in Australia. This necessitates a strategic and comprehensive framework that positions pharmacists as essential catalysts in the broader landscape of healthcare, ensuring their contributions are optimally leveraged to enhance patient outcomes and system efficiency.

Cluster randomised controlled trial evaluating the clinical and humanistic impact of a pharmacist-led minor ailment service

BACKGROUND

Community pharmacists are well positioned to support patients' minor ailments. The objective was to evaluate the clinical and humanistic impact of a minor ailment service (MAS) in community pharmacy compared with usual pharmacist care (UC).

METHODS

A cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted. Intervention patients received MAS, which included a consultation with the pharmacist. MAS pharmacists were trained in clinical pathways and communication systems mutually agreed with general practitioners and received monthly support. Control patients received UC. All patients were followed up by telephone at 14 days. Clinical and humanistic impact were defined by primary (appropriate referral rate and appropriate non-prescription medicine rate) and secondary outcomes (clinical product-based intervention rate, referral adherence, symptom resolution, reconsultation and EuroQol EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS)).

RESULTS

Patients (n=894) were recruited from 30 pharmacies and 82% (n=732) responded to follow-up. Patients receiving MAS were 1.5 times more likely to receive an appropriate referral (relative rate (RR)=1.51; 95% CI 1.07 to 2.11; p=0.018) and were five times more likely to adhere to referral, compared with UC (RR=5.08; 95%CI 2.02 to 12.79; p=0.001). MAS patients (94%) achieved symptom resolution or relief at follow-up, while this was 88% with UC (RR=1.06; 95% CI 1 to 1.13; p=0.035). MAS pharmacists were 1.2 times more likely to recommend an appropriate medicine (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.3; p=0.000) and were 2.6 times more likely to perform a clinical product-based intervention (RR=2.62, 95% CI 1.28 to 5.38; p=0.009), compared with UC. MAS patients had a greater mean difference in VAS at follow-up (4.08; 95% CI 1.23 to 6.87; p=0.004). No difference in reconsultation was observed (RR=0.98; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28; p=0.89).

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrates improved clinical and humanistic outcomes with MAS. National implementation is a means to manage minor ailments more effectively in the Australian health system.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12618000286246.

Prospective daily diary study reporting of any and all symptoms in healthy adults in Pakistan: prevalence and response

OBJECTIVES

Prevalence of symptoms in everyday life and how people respond to these symptoms is little studied outside Western culture and developed countries. We sought to use modified diary methods to explore the prevalence of and responses to symptoms in Pakistan.

DESIGN

Prospective daily survey of symptoms and response.

SETTING

8 cities across four provinces in Pakistan.

PARTICIPANTS

Stratified intercept in each city to recruit 153 participants of which 151 completed.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Each day for 30 days, participants were prompted by text message (short message service (SMS)) to complete a symptom diary. On days where symptoms were experienced, participants also reported how they responded. Prevalence was adjusted to population age and gender distributions.

RESULTS

92% of participants experienced symptoms (adjusted prevalence 94%, 95% CI 91% to 97%), with musculoskeletal pain (83%, adj. 84%, 95% CI 84% to 90%) and respiratory symptoms (75%, adj. 77%, 95% CI 71% to 84%) the most prevalent types of symptoms. Self-medication and use of home remedies and traditional medicines were the most common responses. Seeking professional help or using conventional medicine were less common, and self-medication responses included the use of antibiotics without prescription. The range of home remedies and traditional medicines was very diverse.

CONCLUSIONS

While symptom experience in Pakistan was similar to Western countries, home remedies were much more frequently used to respond to symptoms. Understanding how people respond and manage their experience of symptoms outside formal healthcare is important for designing effective policy and interventions, and this needs to be understood within the broader context including the cultural and economic setting, the health system and other structural determinants of health.

Pharmacist-led minor ailment programs: a Canadian perspective

Pharmacists have a long history of helping Canadians with minor ailments. This often has involved management with over-the-counter medications. If pharmacists felt that the best care required something more robust, they would refer the patient to a physician. In hopes of improving the care of such ailments, Canadian provinces have granted pharmacists the option of selecting medications traditionally under physician control. This review examines the Canadian perspective on pharmacists prescribing for minor ailments and the evidence of value for these programs. It might provide guidance for other jurisdictions contemplating such a move.

Usage patterns of 'over-the-counter' vs. prescription-strength nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in France

AIMS

Most risks of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are pharmacological, dose and duration dependent. Usage patterns of prescription-only (POM) or 'over-the-counter (OTC)' NSAIDs may influence risks, but are not commonly described.

METHODS

The Echantillon Généraliste de Bénéficiaires database, the permanent 1/97 representative sample from the French national healthcare insurance systems, was queried over 2009-2010 to identify usage patterns, concomitant chronic diseases and cardiovascular medication in OTC and POM NSAID users.

RESULTS

Over 2 years, 229 477 of 526 108 patients had at least one NSAID dispensation; 44 484 patients (19%) were dispensed only OTC NSAIDs (93% ibuprofen) and 121 208 (53%) only POM NSAIDs. The OTC users were younger (39.9 vs. 47.4 years old) and more often female (57 vs. 53%); 69% of OTC users and 49% of POM users had only one dispensation. A mean of 14.6 defined daily doses (DDD) were dispensed over 2 years for OTC vs. 53 for POM; 93% OTC vs. 60% POM patients bought ≤ 30 DDD over 2 years, and 1.5 vs. 12% bought ≥ 90 DDD. Chronic comorbidities were found in 19% of OTC users vs. 28% of POM users; 24 vs. 37% had at least one dispensation of a cardiovascular drug over the 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the use of NSAIDs appears to be short term, especially for OTC-type NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen. The validity of risk estimates for NSAIDs extrapolated from clinical trials or from observational studies not including OTC-type usage may need to be revised.

Factors associated with self-care activities among adults in the United Kingdom: a systematic review

Background

The Government has promoted self-care. Our aim was to review evidence about who uses self-tests and other self-care activities (over-the-counter medicine, private sector, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), home blood pressure monitors).

Methods

During April 2007, relevant bibliographic databases (Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, PsycINFO, British Nursing Index, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Sociological Abstracts, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Arthritis and Complementary Medicine Database, Complementary and Alternative Medicine and Pain Database) were searched, and potentially relevant studies were reviewed against eligibility criteria. Studies were included if they were published during the last 15 years and identified factors, reasons or characteristics associated with a relevant activity among UK adults. Two independent reviewers used proformas to assess the quality of eligible studies.

Results

206 potentially relevant papers were identified, 157 were excluded, and 49 papers related to 46 studies were included: 37 studies were, or used data from questionnaire surveys, 36 had quality scores of five or more out of 10, and 27 were about CAM. Available evidence suggests that users of CAM and over-the-counter medicine are female, middle-aged, affluent and/or educated with some measure of poor health, and that people who use the private sector are affluent and/or educated.

Conclusion

People who engage in these activities are likely to be affluent. Targeted promotion may, therefore, be needed to ensure that use is equitable. People who use some activities also appear to have poorer measures of health than non-users or people attending conventional services. It is, therefore, also important to ensure that self-care is not used as a second choice for people who have not had their needs met by conventional services.

The use of medication for chronic pain in primary care, and the potential for intervention by a practice-based pharmacist

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The majority of people with chronic pain use analgesics regularly. Ensuring their safe and appropriate use is important. This study aimed to describe patterns of analgesic prescribing in one general practice, devise a method of identifying chronic pain patients from prescribing records, and assess prescribing recommendations made after a pharmacist-led review of analgesic prescribing and identify the proportion of these acted on by GPs.

METHODS

Prescribing records in a practice of 6720 patients were searched and 678 patients were identified as receiving prescriptions for analgesics. 230 were invited to participate and sent a questionnaire, including questions about chronic pain severity, general health and medications used. This was repeated after six months. The pharmacist completed a detailed medication review using information from medical records, questionnaires and personal interviews. Prescribing recommendations were made to GPs.

RESULTS

192 recommendations about safe or appropriate prescribing were made for 86% of participants after records review, 56% being directly related to analgesic use. After 6 months all recommendations had been implemented in 77% of the patients. Few additional recommendations were made after interview. There was little or no relationship with changes in chronic pain severity or general or psychological health.

CONCLUSIONS

We have demonstrated a method of identifying patients with chronic pain in primary care, and the feasibility and acceptability of a pharmacist-led intervention. This is of potential value in primary care, as relevant prescribing recommendations were made for most patients although further research is required to assess these.