↓ Skip to main content

A cluster randomised control trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Italian medicines use review (I-MUR) for asthma patients

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
163 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A cluster randomised control trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Italian medicines use review (I-MUR) for asthma patients
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2245-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Manfrin, Michela Tinelli, Trudy Thomas, Janet Krska

Abstract

The economic burden of asthma, which relates to the degree of control, is €5 billion annually in Italy. Pharmacists could help improve asthma control, reducing this burden. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Medicines Use Reviews provided by community pharmacists in asthma. This cluster randomised, multi-centre, controlled trial in adult patients with asthma was conducted in 15 of the 20 regions of Italy between September 2014 and July 2015. After stratification by region, community pharmacists were randomly allocated to group A (trained in and delivered the intervention at baseline) or B (training and delivery 3 months later), using computerised random number generation in blocks of 10. Each recruited up to five patients, with both groups followed for 9 months. The intervention consisted of a systematic, structured face-to-face consultation with a pharmacist, covering asthma symptoms, medicines used, attitude towards medicines and adherence, recording pharmacist-identified pharmaceutical care issues (PCIs). The primary outcome was asthma control, assessed using the Asthma-Control-Test (ACT) score (ACT ≥ 20 represents good control). Secondary outcomes were: number of active ingredients, adherence, cost-effectiveness compared with usual care. Although blinding was not possible for either pharmacists or patients, assessment of outcomes was conducted by researchers blind to group allocation. Numbers of pharmacists and patients enrolled were 283 (A = 136; B = 147) and 1263 (A = 600; B = 663), numbers completing were 201 (A = 97; B = 104) and 816 (A = 400; B = 416), respectively. Patients were similar in age and gender and 56.13% (458/816) had poor/partial asthma control. Pharmacists identified 1256 PCIs (mean 1.54/patient), mostly need for education, monitoring and potentially ineffective therapy. Median ACT score at baseline differed between groups (A = 19, B = 18; p < 0.01). Odds ratio for improved asthma control was 1.76 (95% CI 1.33-2.33) and number needed to treat 10 (95% CI 6-28). Number of active ingredients reduced by 7.9% post-intervention (p < 0.01). Adherence improved by 35.4% 3 months post-intervention and 40.0% at 6 months (p < 0.01). The probability of the intervention being more cost-effective than usual care was 100% at 9 months. This community pharmacist-based intervention demonstrated both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. It has since been implemented as the first community pharmacy cognitive service in Italy. TRN: ISRCTN72438848 (registered 5(th) January 2015, retrospectively).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 162 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 14%
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Master 19 12%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Other 14 9%
Other 26 16%
Unknown 47 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 22%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 34 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Psychology 4 2%
Other 20 12%
Unknown 51 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 71. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 October 2017.
All research outputs
#526,703
of 23,312,088 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#93
of 7,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,979
of 310,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#3
of 132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,312,088 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,804 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,576 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 132 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.