ObjectivePharmaceutical care is closely related to the outcome and prognosis of disease treatment. This study analyses the research status, hotspots, frontiers and development trends of pharmaceutical care from the perspective of bibliometrics.MethodsRelated literature on pharmaceutical care published in the Web of Science Core Collection database was collected and knowledge maps were drawn by science information visualisation software Citespace 6.1 .R3 and VOSviewer 1.6.17.0.ResultsA total of 3289 institutions from 105 countries/regions published 2906 papers in 669 academic journals, which were cited 50 027 times. The top three countries/regions by the number of publications are the USA, UK and Brazil. The top three institutions are Utrecht University and the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, and University College London in the UK. The top three journals are American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy. The top three authors are Hersberger KE, Bouvy ML and Hughes CM. The most co-cited is Hepler CD, and the most co-cited influential is Strand LM. COVID-19 pandemic, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and pharmacy practice are the most cutting edge topics in the field of research in pharmaceutical care. Pharmaceutical service and clinical pharmacy are research hotspots in pharmaceutical care.ConclusionIn the past 10 years, papers in the field of pharmaceutical care have shown a significant growth trend and scholars have become increasingly interested in research on related content in the field of pharmaceutical care. Our research results are of great significance for improving the connotation construction of pharmaceutical care and improving patient satisfaction and prognosis, and can also be used as an important reference for relevant scholars to select scientific research topics for subsequent research. The objective basis for relevant government departments is to modify and formulate health policies or measures.
A difference-in-difference-in-difference (DDD) model was used to compare the trends. Several sample populations were included in this study for different types of cancer screening. All states were analyzed in this study. States expanded Medicaid during the study period were regarded as the treatment group, otherwise, as a control group. Robustness checks were conducted after main analysis. Statistical analysis was conducted in Stata/SE 15.1 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX). Results: Medicaid expansion slightly improved screening rate by 2%, 0.3% and 2% respectively for breast cancer, cervical cancer and prostate cancer for respondents whose income were below or at 138 % federal poverty line (FPL) in expansion states comparing respondents whose income were over 138 % in non-expansion states. The screening rate for prostate cancer had a marginally significant improvement, increased by 4% comparing respondents with household income below or at 138 % FPL in expansion states with respondents with household income over 400 % FPL in non-expansion states. And these effects have disparities in different racial groups. Conclusions: The effect of Medicaid expansion on cancer screening was not significant for most cancer screening in this study and only marginally significant for prostate cancer when comparing respondents with household income below 138 % FPL in expansion states with respondents with household income over 400 % FPL in non-expansion states.
discharged for any of the 280 PACT policy defined DRGs with an LOS shorter than the geometric mean for the DRG. To investigate the potential benefits of this policy, we assessed differences in re-admissions and healthcare costs between PACT eligible patients discharged to HH and those discharged to home with no home healthcare. Methods: Patients enrolled in Medicare Advantage with a PACT eligible discharge in 2018 were evaluated for this retrospective, claims analysis of a large national health plan. Index was the date of discharge. Patients with a claim for HH services within 7 days post-index comprised the HH group. Patients discharged to home with no claim for HH in the 90-day post-index period were the comparison group. Cox proportional-hazards models with an instrumental variable (hospital-level probability of HH referral) and adjustment for case-mix were used to assess all-cause readmissions post-index. Post-index total healthcare costs were modeled using generalized estimating equations fit to a gamma distribution. Results: There were 3,753 HH patients and 13,342 home only patients in the study cohort. HH patients were older [mean age 71.7 (+/-7) vs 70.8 (+/-9)], more frequently female (58.5%), with mostly surgical DRGs (85.4%). For HH patients, the risk of 30-day readmission was reduced by 60%, 60-day by 45% and 90-day by 37%. Healthcare costs were 11% lower for the HH group. Conclusions: For PACT eligible patients, the provision of additional healthcare services in the home setting was associated with fewer hospital re-admissions and reduced total healthcare costs, including costs of home health.
dispensation was analyzed during the 6-month follow-up period. The impact of formulary restriction on likelihood of prescribed AED's successful dispensation was assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. Results: There were 9,529 and 3,081 patients in the approved and rejected claim cohorts, respectively. The proportion of patients with an index claim for a generic AED was higher in the approved (95.9%) vs. the rejected (88.9%) cohort. Mean (SD) time to first dispensation was 2.1 (11.9) and 7.4 (21.5) days for the approved and rejected cohort, respectively. The proportion of patients with a successful index AED dispensation at 6 months was higher in the approved (92.8%) vs. rejected (75.7%) cohort. After adjustment, formulary-related rejection of an index AED was associated with lower likelihood of its successful dispensation [hazard ratio: 0.73; p,0.001]. Conclusions: Formulary restrictions may lead to an average delay of 5.3 days and reduced likelihood of successful dispensation of AED treatment for pediatric patients diagnosed with FS.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.