“…These consisted of the following (some papers described more than one study type):- 12 systematic reviews (5 of RCTs of pharmacist-led behavioural interventions for smoking [15–19], 1 of process elements of such interventions [20], 3 of pharmacist-led behavioural interventions other than smoking cessation [15, 19, 21], 1 of the scope of pharmacy practice [4], 1 of pharmacists’ perceptions [13], and 1 of qualitative studies of the patient experience [22]);
- 6 reviews not described as ‘systematic’, of pharmacy business models, pharmacist scope of practice, pharmacist training programmes or the process elements of RCTs [2, 23–27];
- 18 RCTs, of which 14 related to smoking cessation [28–41] and 4 to other behavioural interventions [42–45];
- 1 cost-effectiveness study linked to a RCT [40];
- 1 paper describing additional process detail on a RCT [46];
- 12 evaluations of pharmacist training courses, using either pre-post classroom assessments or ‘mystery shopper’ assessments of performance in practice, comprising 2 linked to RCTs [28, 29] and 10 before and after studies [47–56];
- 7 papers reporting quantitative surveys (6 of pharmacists [57–62] and 4 of service users [57, 58, 63, 64]);
- 6 papers describing qualitative studies, 5 based on semi-structured interviews (3 of pharmacists [3, 65, 66], 1 of pharmacy owners [67], 2 of service users [3, 65], 1 of researchers [68]) and 1 a focus group study of service users [69];
- 2 in-depth case studies [70, 71];
- 2 business models [67, 72];
- 1 paper describing the development of a complex intervention [73].
…”