Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp 705–708 | Cite as

The challenges of outcome research

  • Lene Juel KjeldsenEmail author
  • Trine Rune Høgh Nielsen
  • Charlotte Olesen
Commentary

Abstract

Cognitive pharmacy trials seek to identify interventions that benefit patients. The potential benefits of an intervention are primarily evaluated by outcome measures. The question then is: What is the optimal outcome measure? Unfortunately, the question remains unsolved. Several factors must be taken into consideration when conducting outcome research—particularly within cognitive pharmacy trials. The interventions are often complex and non-specific, and seek to improve symptom control, optimise the use of medications and reduce medication-related risks. “Hard” endpoints, such as mortality and hospital admissions, may not be the optimal outcome measures, since cognitive pharmacy interventions are unlikely to result in changes in these measures. Instead, adverse drug events or “soft” endpoints, such as quality of life, drug-related problems and patient satisfaction may be appropriate choices of outcome measures. Finally, it is not only outcome measures that may pose a challenge when conducting outcome research; other essential components include study design, type of intervention, the patient population, etc.

Keywords

Cognitive pharmacy intervention Outcome Patient satisfaction Quality of life 

Notes

Funding

None.

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Wong ICK. RESPECT Team. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate complex healthcare interventions—a case study. Pharm World Sci. 2004;26(5):247–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Krska J, Rowe PH. Outcome measures: a sensitive approach. Int J Pharm Pract. 2010;18:125–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Graabaek T, Kjeldsen LJ. Medication reviews by clinical pharmacists at hospitals lead to improved patient outcomes: a systematic review. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2013;112(6):359–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Emmerton L, Marriot J, Bessell T, et al. Pharmacists and prescribing rights: review of international developments. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2005;8:217–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frenk J. Obituary of avedis donabedian. Bull World Health Organ. 2000;70(12):1475.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Donabedian A. The quality of care: how can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988;121(11):1145–50.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarke M. Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews. Trials. 2007;8:39.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance. 2008: http://www.bmj.com/content/337/bmj.a1655.
  9. 9.
    Bowling A. Research methods in health: investigating health and health services. 2nd ed. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aronson JK. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2005;59(5):491–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cohn JN. Introduction to surrogate markers. Circulation. 2004;109(25 Suppl 1):IV20–1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wieczorek A, Rys P, Skrzekowska-Baran I, Malecki M. The role of surrogate endpoints in the evaluation of efficacy and safety of therapeutic interventions in diabetes mellitus. Rev Diabet Stud. 2008;5(3):128–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health-survery (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Farris KB. The impact of pharmacist interventions on health-related quality of life. Ann Pharmacother. 1999;33(11):1167–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jepsen P, Johnsen SP, Gillman MW, Sørensen HT. Interpretation of observational studies. Heart. 2004;90:956–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wiffen P. No evidence or evidence of no effect. Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2014;21(2):71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krass I. Quasi experimental designs in pharmacist intervention research. IJCP 2016:1–8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lene Juel Kjeldsen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Trine Rune Høgh Nielsen
    • 2
  • Charlotte Olesen
    • 3
  1. 1.The Danish Research Unit for Hospital Pharmacy, Amgros I/SCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.The Hospital PharmacyNæstvedDenmark
  3. 3.The Hospital PharmacyAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations