Question · asked by 1 review
Health‐promotion interventions within community pharmacy vs usual treatment alone: Pharmacy user intermediate clinical outcomes e.g. cholesterol, glycated haemoglobin5 (Lower scores indicate a better outcome)
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Health‐promotion interventions within community pharmacy vs usual treatment: effects on professional practice and health outcomes Pharmacy user intermediate clinical outcomes e.g. cholesterol, glycated haemoglobin5 (Lower scores indicate a better outcome) · community pharmacy workers (examples pharmacists, counter assistants etc), community pharmacy users Community pharmacy interventions for health promotion: effects on professional practice and health outcomes (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 3971 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Community pharmacy interventions for health promotion: effects on professional practice and health outcomes 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.