BackgroundImplementation science and knowledge translation have developed across multiple disciplines with the common aim of bringing innovations to practice. Numerous implementation frameworks, models, and theories have been developed to target a diverse array of innovations. As such, it is plausible that not all frameworks include the full range of concepts now thought to be involved in implementation. Users face the decision of selecting a single or combining multiple implementation frameworks. To aid this decision, the aim of this review was to assess the comprehensiveness of existing frameworks.MethodsA systematic search was undertaken in PubMed to identify implementation frameworks of innovations in healthcare published from 2004 to May 2013. Additionally, titles and abstracts from Implementation Science journal and references from identified papers were reviewed. The orientation, type, and presence of stages and domains, along with the degree of inclusion and depth of analysis of factors, strategies, and evaluations of implementation of included frameworks were analysed.ResultsFrameworks were assessed individually and grouped according to their targeted innovation. Frameworks for particular innovations had similar settings, end-users, and ‘type’ (descriptive, prescriptive, explanatory, or predictive). On the whole, frameworks were descriptive and explanatory more often than prescriptive and predictive. A small number of the reviewed frameworks covered an implementation concept(s) in detail, however, overall, there was limited degree and depth of analysis of implementation concepts. The core implementation concepts across the frameworks were collated to form a Generic Implementation Framework, which includes the process of implementation (often portrayed as a series of stages and/or steps), the innovation to be implemented, the context in which the implementation is to occur (divided into a range of domains), and influencing factors, strategies, and evaluations.ConclusionsThe selection of implementation framework(s) should be based not solely on the healthcare innovation to be implemented, but include other aspects of the framework’s orientation, e.g., the setting and end-user, as well as the degree of inclusion and depth of analysis of the implementation concepts. The resulting generic structure provides researchers, policy-makers, health administrators, and practitioners a base that can be used as guidance for their implementation efforts.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-015-0005-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Community pharmacists are the third largest healthcare professional group in the world after physicians and nurses. Despite their considerable training, community pharmacists are the only health professionals who are not primarily rewarded for delivering health care and hence are under-utilized as public health professionals. An emerging consensus among academics, professional organizations, and policymakers is that community pharmacists, who work outside of hospital settings, should adopt an expanded role in order to contribute to the safe, effective, and efficient use of drugs-particularly when caring for people with multiple chronic conditions. Community pharmacists could help to improve health by reducing drug-related adverse events and promoting better medication adherence, which in turn may help in reducing unnecessary provider visits, hospitalizations, and readmissions while strengthening integrated primary care delivery across the health system. This paper reviews recent strategies to expand the role of community pharmacists in Australia, Canada, England, the Netherlands, Scotland, and the United States. The developments achieved or under way in these countries carry lessons for policymakers world-wide, where progress thus far in expanding the role of community pharmacists has been more limited. Future policies should focus on effectively integrating community pharmacists into primary care; developing a shared vision for different levels of pharmacist services; and devising new incentive mechanisms for improving quality and outcomes.

Background Primary health professionals are well positioned to support the delivery of patient self-management in an evidence-based, structured capacity. A need exists to better understand the active components required for effective self-management support, how these might be delivered within primary care, and the training and system changes that would subsequently be needed. Objectives (1) To examine self-management support interventions in primary care on health outcomes for a wide range of diseases compared to usual standard of care; and (2) To identify the effective strategies that facilitate positive clinical and humanistic outcomes in this setting. Method A systematic review of randomized controlled trials evaluating self-management support interventions was conducted following the Cochrane handbook & PRISMA guidelines. Published literature was systematically searched from inception to June 2019 in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. Eligible studies assessed the effectiveness of individualized interventions with follow-up, delivered face-to-face to adult patients with any condition in primary care, compared with usual standard of care. Matrices were developed that mapped the evidence and components for each intervention. The methodological quality of included studies were appraised. Results 6,510 records were retrieved. 58 studies were included in the final qualitative synthesis. Findings reveal a structured patient-provider exchange is required in primary care (including a one-on-one patient-provider consultation, ongoing follow up and provision of self-help materials). Interventions should be tailored to patient needs and may include combinations of strategies to improve a patient’s disease or treatment knowledge; independent monitoring of symptoms, encouraging self-treatment through a personalized action plan in response worsening symptoms or exacerbations, psychological coping and stress management strategies, and enhancing responsibility in medication adherence and lifestyle choices. Follow-up may include tailored feedback, monitoring of progress with respect to patient set healthcare goals, or honing problem-solving and decision-making skills. Theoretical models provided a strong base for effective SMS interventions. Positive outcomes for effective SMS included improvements in clinical indicators, health-related quality of life, self-efficacy (confidence to self-manage), disease knowledge or control. An SMS model has been developed which sets the foundation for the design and evaluation of practical strategies for the construct of self-management support interventions in primary healthcare practice. Conclusions These findings provide primary care professionals with evidence-based strategies and structure to deliver SMS in practice. For this collaborative partnership approach to be more widely applied, future research should build on these findings for optimal SMS servic...

The AFasma study focused on the important outcomes of asthma management, and showed that through the designed intervention, community pharmacists can increase controlled asthma patients compared to usual care. Trial registration NCT01085474.

BackgroundThe concept of Pharmaceutical Care is operationalized through pharmaceutical professional services, which are patient-oriented to optimize their pharmacotherapy and to improve clinical outcomes. ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of a medication review with follow-up (MRF) service for older adults with polypharmacy in Spanish community pharmacies, against the alternative of having their medication dispensed normally. MethodsThe study was designed as a cluster randomized controlled trial, and was carried out over a time horizon of six months. The target population was older adults with polypharmacy, defined as individuals taking five or more medicines per day. The study was conducted in 178 community pharmacies in Spain. Costutility analysis adopted a health service perspective. Costs were in euros at 2014 prices and the effectiveness of the intervention was estimated as QALYs. In order to analyze the uncertainty of ICER results, we performed a nonparametric bootstrapping with 5,000 replications. ConclusionMRF service is an effective intervention for optimizing prescribed medication and improving the quality of life in older adults with polypharmacy in community pharmacies. The results from the cost-utility analysis suggest that MRF service is cost effective. Key points for decision makers-Polypharmacy is a particular concern in older adult populations, and is associated with negative health outcomes.-Medication review with follow-up is a service that attempts to optimize pharmacotherapy, not just by focusing on the process of the use of medication, but also by improving clinical outcomes for older adults.-Medication review with follow-up service is an effective intervention for optimizing prescribed medication and improving the quality of life of older adults with polypharmacy in community pharmacies. Compared with usual dispensing, this service is cost effective.3