The impact of pharmaceutical care on the clinical outcome of diabetes mellitus among a rural patient population

Abstract

AIM:To evaluate the impact of pharmaceutical care on the clinical outcomes of patients enrolled in a pharmacist-coordinated diabetes management program in a rural health setup.SETTINGS AND DESIGN:Patients were registered into ‘control’ and ‘intervention’ groups by randomization at three primary health centers. The study was an open-label parallel study.MATERIALS AND METHODS:Medical records were prospectively reviewed. Capillary blood glucose level, blood pressure and demographic data were collected at baseline and at the follow-up visits. Pharmacists gave counseling to the intervention group during every visit and their health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed with the Ferrans and Powers questionnaire.STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:Single factor ANOVA and the t-test were used to compare the results using SPSS version 0.9 software and MS Excel worksheets.RESULTS:The intervention group (n = 104) showed well-controlled BMI, whereas the control group (n = 50) showed significant increase in the BMI. Mean blood glucose level in the intervention group reduced to 25 units from baseline (P = 0.0001) but was significantly increased in the control group (P = 0.0001). ANOVA showed that from the second follow-up onward there was significant decrease in blood glucose levels. Overall, the HRQoL scores increased by 45% in the intervention group and decreased by 2% in the control group.CONCLUSIONS:The pharmaceutical care program was effective in improving the clinical outcome and HRQoL of diabetes patients in rural India. Such ‘pharmaceutical care’ models should be fine-tuned and implemented widely.

Measuring the rate of therapeutic adherence among outpatients with T2DM in Egypt

“…The promotion of medication adherence is an important component of pharmaceutical care practice (Arun et al, 2008). Medication adherence or the older term, drug compliance, is defined as the extent to which a person's medication use behavior coincides with medical or health advice; and persistence as the duration of time from initiation to discontinuation of therapy (Cramer et al, 2008).…”

A Pilot Study on the Impact of Pharmacist Intervention in Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus Counselling Program in a Rural Community

“…Several studies have reported that patient counselling and lifestyle modification improves the patient knowledge about such diseases, QOL and also reduces the blood sugar level [7,19,20] . There was an improvement in QOL score in the intervention group.…”

Pharmaceutical care – impact on quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes: a review

“…Of the 17 included in this review, four were conducted in Australia, [33][34][35][36] two in Brazil, 37,38 one in Canada, 39 two in India, 40,41 two in the United Arab Emirates, 42,43 one in the UK, 44 and five in the USA [45][46][47][48][49] (Table 1). Ten studies were conducted in community pharmacy settings 33,[35][36][37][38][39]42,[44][45][46] and involved between one 37,39 and 83 36 community pharmacies in the provision of care, five were conducted in health centers or ambulatory clinics, 34,40,[47][48][49] and two in hospitals settings 41,43 (Table 1). In eight studies, patients were randomized into intervention and control groups, 34,[39][40][41]43,44,47,49 two studies used a clustered randomized controlled design, 35,36 one a parallel groups design,…”

“…Ten studies were conducted in community pharmacy settings 33,[35][36][37][38][39]42,[44][45][46] and involved between one 37,39 and 83 36 community pharmacies in the provision of care, five were conducted in health centers or ambulatory clinics, 34,40,[47][48][49] and two in hospitals settings 41,43 (Table 1). In eight studies, patients were randomized into intervention and control groups, 34,[39][40][41]43,44,47,49 two studies used a clustered randomized controlled design, 35,36 one a parallel groups design, 33 and four involved a single group repeated measures design (Table 1). 37,42,45,48 The mean quality score for the 13 studies included in the quality rating was 0.63 ± 0.11 (range 0.40-0.76), which is classified as only fair (Table 2).…”