Advertisement

Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 26, Issue 5, pp 247–252 | Cite as

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate complex healthcare interventions - a case study

  • Ian Chi Kei Wong
Commentary

Abstract

In 2001 the UK National Health Service (NHS) issued its National Service Framework for the Elderly (NSF-E). This identified the elderly as a vulnerable group needing a high level of pharmaceutical intervention. As such, the NSF-E outlined plans to implement ‘medicines management’ and ‘pharmaceutical care’ within community-based clinical pharmacy on behalf of older people. In response a group of researchers from Pharmacy, General Practice and Health Services Research set about designing a project to evaluate community-based pharmaceutical care for the elderly which would be funded under the Medical Research Council’s (MRC) ‘primary care’ initiative. This article describes the application of the MRC’s framework for complex interventions to a large randomised trial of pharmaceutical care and discusses the stages through which the research passed, from ideas, through planning, to implementation and modification after piloting. The authors also highlight difficulties encountered, e.g., issues of patient confidentiality, and how these problems were resolved. This description is intended to be of value to other pharmacy practice researchers.

Medical Research Council Methodology Medicine management MRC framework Pharmaceutical care Randomised clinical trials United Kingdom 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Zillich AJ, Ryan M, Adams A, Yeager B, Farris K. Effectiveness of a pharmacist-based smoking-cessation program and its impact on quality of life. Pharmacotherapy 2002; 22: 759–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kennedy DT, Giles JT, Chang ZG, Small RE, Edwards JH. Results of a smoking cessation clinic in community pharmacy practice. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 2002; 42: 51–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sinclair HK, Bond CM, Lennox AS, Silcock J, Winfield AJ. Training pharmacists and pharmacy assistants in the stage-of-change model of smoking cessation: a randomised controlled trial in Scotland. Tobacco Control 1998; 7: 253–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    MRC Health Services and Public Health Research Board. Frame-work for development and evaluation of RCTs for complex in-terventions to improve health. Medical Research Council 2000. http://www.mrc.ac.uk/pdf-mrc_cpr.pdf (12 March 2004).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anon. Minster launches Barking's medicines project for the elderly. Pharm J 2002; 268:197.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anon. Aberdeen group to lead research into medicines manage-ment in community pharmacies. Pharm J. 2001; 266: 349.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anon. Medical Research Council supports randomised pharma-ceutical care trial. Pharm J 2001; 266: 801.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cipolle RJ, Strand LM, Morley PC. Pharmaceutical care practice. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998. ISBN 0070120463.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barber N. Pharmaceutical care and medicines management-is there a difference? A welcome debate. Pharm World Sci 2001; 23: 210–1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kennie NR, Schuster BG, Einsarson TR. Critical analysis of the pharmaceutical care research literature. Ann Pharmacother 1998; 32: 17–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Department of Health. Medicines and older people-implementing medicines-related aspects of the NSF for older people. London: HMSO 2001 (http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/06/ 72/47/04067247.pdf).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hepler CD, Strand LM. Opportunities and responsibilities in pharmaceutical care. Am J Hosp Pharm 1990; 47: 533–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ferner R. Is concordance the primrose path to health? BMJ 2003; 327: 821–2CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bowling A. Research methods in health. Investigating health and health service. ckingham, UK: Open University Press 2002. ISBN 0335206433Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Robson C. Real World Research. A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. Oxford: Blackwell 2001. ISBN 0631176896.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sitthiworanan C, Wright D, Silcock J, Tweddell S, George B, Wong I et al. Pharmaceutical care planning in elderly nursing homes. An International Congress on Clinical Pharmacy: Docu-menting the Value of Clinical Pharmacy Service. April 11-14 1999, Orlando, Florida: American College of Clinical Pharmacy, European Society of Clinical Pharmacy.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Needham DS, Wong ICK, Campion PD. Evaluation of the effec-tiveness of UK community pharmacists' interventions in the community palliative care. Palliative Med 2002; 16: 219–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Department of Health. Pharmacy in the future-implementing the NHS plan. London: HMSO, 2000 (http://www.dh.gov.uk/ assetRoot/04/06/82/04/04068204.pdf).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cook TD, Campbell DT. Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin, 1979. ISBN 0395307902.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bernsten C, Bjorkman I, Caramona M, Crealey G, Frokjaer B, Grundberger E et al. Improving the well-being of elderly pa-tients via community pharmacy-based provision of pharmaceu-tical care: a multicentre study in seven European countries. Drugs Aging 2001; 18: 63–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Plumridge RJ, Wojnar-Horton RE. Review of the pharmacoeco-nomics of pharmaceutical care. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 14: 175–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mahnnheim L. Health services research clinical trials: issues in the evaluation of economic cost and benefits. Contr ClinTrials 1999; 19: 149–58.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Altman DG. Designing research. Practical statistics for medical research, 1st ed London: Chapman & Hall, 1991; 74–103. ISBN 0412276305.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    MRC working group. Personal Information in Medical Research. Medical Research Council 2000. http://www.mrc.ac.uk/pdf-pimr. pdf(12 March 2004).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ukoumunne OC, Gulliford MC, Chinn S, Sterne JAC, Burney PGJ. Methods for evaluating area-wide and organisation-based inter-ventions in health and health care: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 1999; 3: 1–110.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Donner A, Birkett N, Buck C. Randomisation by cluster. Sample size requirements and analysis. Am J Epidemiol 1981; 114: 906–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zermansky AG, Petty DR, Raynor DK, Freemantle N, Vail A, Lowe CJ. Randomised controlled trial of clinical medication review by a pharmacist of elderly patients receiving repeat prescriptions in general practice. BMJ. 2001; 323: 1340–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain & King's Fund. A new age for pharmacy practice research: promoting evidence-based in pharmacy. London: Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian Chi Kei Wong
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Paediatric Pharmacy Research, The School of PharmacyUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations