Our unique finding that better conceptualization predicted nonadherence has important implications for healthcare providers' approaches to improve adherence in older adults with cognitive impairment. Replication in future studies is warranted.

The literature on pharmacogenomics as a tool to support antidepressant precision is burgeoning. Recently, a more active role has been argued for pharmacists in pharmacogenomic testing, with both pharmacists and family physicians perceiving pharmacist-led testing as a valuable method by which to scale this innovation for depression treatment. In this prospective, single-blind randomized controlled design, we evaluated the impact of pharmacogenomics guided versus standard antidepressant treatment of depression and anxiety, implemented in three large community pharmacies. Participants were 213 outpatients diagnosed with major depressive disorder and/ or generalized anxiety disorder, randomized to receive pharmacogenomics guided (n = 105) or standard antidepressant treatment (n = 108); participants were blinded to the study. Patient reported outcomes of depression, anxiety, disability, and treatment satisfaction were assessed at months 0, 1, 3, and 6. Hypotheses were investigated using mixed effect models on the full data. All clinical outcomes improved significantly. The primary outcome (depression) and two secondary outcomes (generalized anxiety and disability) exhibited significant time by group interactions indicating that they improved for participants who received pharmacogenomics guided treatment more so than they did for participants who received standard treatment. Treatment satisfaction improved similarly for both groups. Results contribute to a growing body of work evaluating the impact of pharmacogenomics testing to inform antidepressant medication treatment for depression and anxiety, and provides important initial evidence for the role of pharmacists in care delivery. Pharmacogenomic testing may be a valuable tool to allow pharmacists to more effectively collaborate in facilitating clinical treatment decisions. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: (NCT03591224). This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Background Brief interventions have been increasingly investigated to promote early intervention in gambling problems; an accurate estimate of the impact of these interventions is required to justify their widespread implementation. The goal of the current investigation was to evaluate the efficacy of in-person brief interventions for reducing gambling behaviour and/or problems, by quantifying the aggregate effect size associated with these interventions in the published literature to date. Methods Randomized controlled trials including the following design features were identified via systematic review: an adult sample experiencing problems associated with gambling; an in-person individual psychosocial intervention of brief duration (≤3 sessions); a control/comparison group; and an outcome related to gambling behaviour and/or problems. Results Five records compared brief interventions to assessment only control; using a random effect model, brief interventions were associated with a small but statistically significant reduction in gambling behaviour across short-term follow-up periods versus assessment only control ( g = -.19, 95% CI [-.37, -.01]). Aggregate effect sizes for gambling problems and long-term follow-up periods were not statistically significant. Five records compared brief interventions to longer active interventions; there was no significant difference between brief interventions and longer active interventions. Conclusions Results supported the efficacy of brief interventions for problem gambling compared to inactive control in the reduction of gambling behaviour; no differences were found across brief versus longer interventions for both gambling behaviour and problems. While these findings must be interpreted in the context of the limited number of studies and small magnitude of the combined effect sizes, the current meta-analysis supports the further investigation of the public health impact of these cost-effective interventions.